1 of 3
1
Mathews, Olbermann, Shultz, Biden, Obama you now have a body count.
Posted: 17 January 2011 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

FACT:  Obama said, “[We need to] punish our enemies…”

FACT:  Obama said, “Get in their face!”

FACT:  Obama said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun!”

FACT:  Joe Biden said, “I am going to strangle them [Republicans]!”

FACT: Chris Mathews confessed to fantasizing about someone shooting Rush Limbaugh in the head.

FACT:
  Ed Shultz said, “We ought to rip it [Dick Cheney’s heart] out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

FACT:  Democrat Rep. Rep. Paul Kanjorski said of a Republican, “...they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

FACT:
  The St. Petersburg Democratic Club put an ad in the paper that said “We should put this S.O.B. [Rumsfeld] up against a wall and say, ‘This is one of our bad days,’ and pull the trigger.”

FACT:  Democrat Polster Mark Penn said, “Obama needs a similar kind of [Oaklahoma bombing style tragedy], yeah.”

FACT:  Hillary Clinton said, “Never waste a good crisis.”

FACT:  White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

FACT:  Rep. Giffords was a Blue Dog Democrat, not liberal enough for many on the left.

FACT:  Many on the left hated Rep. Giffords and listed her as a “Target” and said she was “DEAD”(Their words!)

FACT:
  A federal Judge appointed by George H.W. Bush was among those killed.

FACT:  It was the Democrats who first published a map of the United States with targets on it.

FACT:  It was a Democrat who put gun crosshairs on the face of an Arizona Representative in a TV spot.

FACT:  Jared Lee Loughner’s favorite movies were Loose Change and Zeitgeist, far-left “documentaries.”

FACT:  “His [Loughner’s] anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush…”

FACT:  One of Loughner’s favorite books was The Communist Manifesto.

FACT:
  Those who knew Laughner said he was, “left wing, quite liberal.”

From these irrefutable facts, we can conclude the following:

* The violent egging on from the left wingnut faction from Obama on down to his mouthpiece MSNBC is clear and irrefutable.
* Laughner was clearly a liberal, and as such, would have known about this egging on from the left wingnut faction.
* The left has said time and time again that a crisis or tragedy like this would be something Obama could use to his advantage, so it would be in their best interest to egg on one of their own.

Obviously, the title and conclusions of this thread are sarcastic satire in response to an asinine title and equally asinine conclusions in another thread that seriously blamed Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Angle, Palin and Bachman for the horrible shootings in Arizona.  Obviously, I do not blame them.  Nor do I blame Mathews, Olbermann, Shultz, Biden or Obama or the political left in general for the shootings.  I just pointed out irrefutable facts regarding the violent rhetoric and images that comes from the left, the shooting and the suspect to make a point.  The question remains whether that point will be taken and those who so callously and recklessly threw blame around will now admit they are wrong.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2011 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07

I know I kind of came out against Palin for the cross-hairs/target comment. However people say a lot of goofy (aggressive sounding) things in the political arena.

However in thinking about it, normal people understand it as political rhetoric, hyperbole talking. No one of normal mental capacity really thinks she is telling people to kill “Democrats”. It’s just easy to claim a connection between the two events and I suppose convenient for one’s political views.

Sometimes I get angry at politicians and maybe mention among friends some kind of nefarious torture. They know I’m not serious. Still I’m nobody. Our political leaders, people, unfortunately, take what they say as influential in their thinking.

Circumstances made her an elite opinion maker. While certainly no one should try to hold her accountable for the tragic events, if I were in such a position I would hope I’d be a little more conscientious about my public statements. Not her in particular but all public leaders.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2011 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Gnostikosis - 17 January 2011 04:46 PM

I know I kind of came out against Palin for the cross-hairs/target comment.

If anything, Palin could be accused of plagiarism, since Democrats came out with a U.S. map with targets long before Palin did. grin  Of course, no rational person could take any such a map as anything violent. 

This whole situation reminds me of when I debate conservatives on sites frequented by them who make claims like, “The U.S. was founded as a Christian nation” or “Hitler was an atheist.”  They live in an echo chamber and only hear the same untrue statements over and over again from like-minded people who hold the same false beliefs.  Yet when I confront them with equally long lists of facts and quotes as evidence that shows them wrong, they just ignore it and keep right on believing what they want to believe.  The same is true here.  Both the liberal “Blame Palin” crowd and the conservative “U.S. Founded Christian” and/or “Hitler Was Atheist” crowd commit the exact same flawed thinking are resort to the same logical fallacies.

Places like Daily Kos, HufPo, MSNBC, Scare Air America are liberal echo chambers that repeat the big lie that only conservatives use such rhetoric - and when liberals do use such rhetoric, there is always a special pleading excuse.  I doubt a single one of those places will reproduce the Democrat’s Target Map or Crosshairs on the Face of a Republican TV Spot.  Even if they did, it really wouldn’t matter to those who have come into this discussion with their a priori beliefs.  They are the Birthers of the Left.  But instead of a Birth Certificate, they might as well claim Sarah Palin personally filled out the Death Certificates of those murdered on that tragic day.  From here on out, I will refer to these conspiracy theorists as Deathers.  grin  They deserve the same ridicule and scorn as “Truthers” and “Birthers.”

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

The silence speaks volumes.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I see no problem with Democrats using these kind of metaphors, since the liberals have on average higher intelligence than the conservatives and understand that these are not a plain speech. A person who is willing to pay attention to what Beck or Hannity have to say—even though here I suspect that Beck only pretends to be an idiot—probably has even a lower intelligence than the Fox News gang.

I do agree with Asanta that Beck and company now have a body count.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

And I also want to add that, IMO, Cohen was right to compare the Republicans’ attacks on the health care to Goebbels’s propaganda. Beck, OTOH, comparing Obama to Hitler is pure nonsense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2010-05-27

This is a little bit of a straw man to me?  In the sense that because you saw someone with a liberal ideology say it I must think it as a liberal?  If you want to ask me what concerns me in the culture of politics today I will tell you.  What worries me the most is to often I see conservative writing pieces (or blogs or post) that boil down to: This is the kind of people liberal are, this is why being that kind of person is bad, ergo we should do the conservative thing.  Writing pieces to often on the conservative side tell you the problem with liberals as people.  Rather than tell you what is wrong with the liberal position it seems very often attractive to tell you what is wrong with liberal people. It is disconcerting because dehumanizing has enabled violence against any number of people around the globe in human history.  Rush, Coulter, Beck, etc they have made a business out of monologues that tell you what is wrong with liberal people.  They paint a picture of an inferior form of humanity when they discuss liberals. They tell you what I lack as a human being.  They tell me what I lack as a human being.  In the last few years these monologues have echoed around the web and into politics.

I have learned from conservative writing that I am jealous of people with money, I don’t have morals, I want to destroy america, I won’t consider facts, I am incapable of admitting when I am wrong, I can’t understand life or happiness, etc.  It is to often about me.  My person. Which is why on this forum when people talk about what is wrong with religious people, what the lack as people, I push back.  Nothing good has ever come out of generalizing about the qualities of a people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6125
Joined  2009-02-26

Rocinante,
Obviously, the title and conclusions of this thread are sarcastic satire in response to an asinine title and equally asinine conclusions in another thread that seriously blamed Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Angle, Palin and Bachman for the horrible shootings in Arizona.  Obviously, I do not blame them.  Nor do I blame Mathews, Olbermann, Shultz, Biden or Obama or the political left in general for the shootings.  I just pointed out irrefutable facts regarding the violent rhetoric and images that comes from the left, the shooting and the suspect to make a point.  The question remains whether that point will be taken and those who so callously and recklessly threw blame around will now admit they are wrong.

There does seem to be a minor difference. I have not heard of a liberal shooting a conservative, while examples of the reverse exist in abundance.
Liberals tend not to have guns to begin with. They are for gun control, thus any metaphor of shooting or placing bullseyes is purely rhetorical to a liberal. Only conservatives espouse the violent overthrow of the government or resisting authority with violence AND have the guns to make it true.

[ Edited: 21 January 2011 12:17 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08

Thanks for the laugh.  You might want to change your name from Rocinante to Rationalizer, though, because that’s where you seem to exert your energy and rhetoric.

So according to you we’re supposed to believe that conservative, right-wing, republican types are really the peace-loving ones who advocate tolerance of others’ beliefs and reject the politics of division, demonization, and fear?!?

And in your world, the liberal, left-wing, progressive, democratic types are really the hate-filled, war-mongering, intolerant ones?!?  And their advocacy of causes like civil-rights, gay-rights, gun-restrictions, universal health-care, environmental protection, banking regulations, fair-wages, social-security, and welfare for the poor, disabled, and downtrodden is actually a divisive ploy to kill people and really just a disguised attempt to destroy America from within, like stealth terrorists?!?

Sorry, I am afraid that most critical thinkers are not going to be able to occupy your world, because it does not exist.  And, I’m not sure why I am even wasting my time trying to converse with someone so divorced from reality. 

I can understand why you might be angry at those trying to tar right-wing ideologies by assigning such a political motive to the Arizona assassin.  But I thought we had agreed (in the opposite thread) that he was motivated by insanity and not by rhetoric.  Now you seem to be trying to tar left-wing ideologies with “body-counts” in a move similar to the one you rejected before.  It seems inconsistent and I just don’t get it.

[ Edited: 21 January 2011 02:19 PM by Pragmatic Naturalist ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
George - 21 January 2011 08:07 AM

I see no problem with Democrats using these kind of metaphors, since the liberals have on average higher intelligence than the conservatives and understand that these are not a plain speech.

Special Pleading Fallacy.  Besides why do you think one group has an average higher intelligence than the other?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
qutsemnie - 21 January 2011 10:40 AM

Nothing good has ever come out of generalizing about the qualities of a people.

Try telling that to George.  He generalizes about the qualities of intelligence between liberals and conservatives.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Pragmatic Naturalist - 21 January 2011 02:16 PM

Thanks for the laugh.  You might want to change your name from Rocinante to Rationalizer, though, because that’s where you seem to exert your energy and rhetoric.

And you might want to change your name to Projector Naturalist since you seem to be naturally projecting your rationalizing onto me. 

Pragmatic Naturalist - 21 January 2011 02:16 PM

So according to you we’re supposed to believe that conservative, right-wing, republican types are really the peace-loving ones who advocate tolerance of others’ beliefs and reject the politics of division, demonization, and fear?!?

Nope.  I never said that.  I’ll be the first to point to how the right is intolerant of such individuals as gays and atheists and how the political right can - and does - use over the top rhetoric. 

Pragmatic Naturalist - 21 January 2011 02:16 PM

But I thought we had agreed (in the opposite thread) that he was motivated by insanity and not by rhetoric.

What do you mean we agreed?  I was the one who said we should wait to find out his motivation and that it really seemed like insanity.  Others originally (and continue to do so!) labored under the delusion that individuals on the political right were somehow responsible without so much as providing one bit of evidence for their claim - and amazing and sad thing to happen on a skeptical board. 

Pragmatic Naturalist - 21 January 2011 02:16 PM

Now you seem to be trying to tar left-wing ideologies with “body-counts” in a move similar to the one you rejected before.  It seems inconsistent and I just don’t get it.

Quit putting words in my mouth (or at my typing fingers smile )  I clearly said this post was sarcastic and satire.  In fact, my exact words were:

Obviously, the title and conclusions of this thread are sarcastic satire…I [do not] blame Mathews, Olbermann, Shultz, Biden or Obama or the political left in general for the shootings. 

Did you even read it?  Or did you just assume? 

And here are some of my previous statements regarding this issue in the opposite thread: 

There is no difference between the left and the right in their rhetoric, their choice of words or how they portray their political opponents. 

If he does turn out to be a liberal (which I am not saying he is - and if he is it doesn’t matter), then it would be just as wrong and stupid to lay the blame on all liberals for the actions of a single man who - I think we can all agree - has some serious mental problems. 

Through Confirmation Bias you only recall the words and deeds of Republicans and Conservatives while forgetting the equal amount of violent words, images and deeds coming from Democrats and liberals.  There is no difference between the two in that regard. 


Look, we are clearly starting to see that this horrible tragic shooting was not motivated by any partisan feelings toward either the left or the right.  And those who so quickly jumped on that bandwagon are wrong.  They know they are wrong. Yet they won’t admit they are wrong.  Again, that’s a very sad thing for a skeptic to do.

[ Edited: 21 January 2011 04:57 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

There does seem to be a minor difference. I have not heard of a liberal shooting a conservative…


Here are some liberal union thugs attacking a conservative (after the White House said they would “punch back twice as hard.”)

After the above attack

...longtime Democratic strategist Michael Meehan was caught on videotape shoving a reporter for the [conservative] Weekly Standard into a metal railing…

It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on health care.

And let’s not forget the G20.  Whenever they get together, the riots and arson comes from the left for purely political reasons.

I know, I know, you specifically mentioned those on the left shooting those on the right.  But what about bombs?

It was a liberal who brought bombs to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Liberal Bill Ayres was in a group that used bombs for partisan attacks.

Likewise, the Unabomber was a far leftist who resorted to bombs for his political ideology.

Ok, you want guns, here you go:

Shots fired at Knoxville Bush-Cheney office.

And let’s not forget the Granddaddy of them all:

Lee Harvey Oswald (far leftist) shot and killed President Kennedy (who by today’s standards would be a conservative.)  Pro-Castro Oswald, unlike Hinkley who shot Reagan, had partisan political motivations to shoot the president.

Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

...while examples of the reverse exist in abundance.

I don’t deny that those on the right have shot those on the left.  Sadly and unfortunately, this is true.  But one of my points was that this is a human problem, not limited (and probably not even more more prevalent) among one or more political ideologies.

Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

Only conservatives espouse the violent overthrow of the government or resisting authority with violence AND have the guns to make it true.

I’m tired of providing links and doing your homework for you.  Crack a history book or a newspaper sometime to study the violent left-wing terrorists who advocate the same thing the violent right-wing terrorists do (albeit from a far left instead of a far right position.)  Here’s a start for you:  “Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat.”  You know who said that?  The FBI. 

Sadly, you and many other allegedly skeptical rational thinkers on this board are just as prone to Confirmation Bias and other flawed thinking that plague the woo woo crowd.  And you appear to be blind to it.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6125
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 21 January 2011 04:56 PM
Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

There does seem to be a minor difference. I have not heard of a liberal shooting a conservative…


Here are some liberal union thugs attacking a conservative (after the White House said they would “punch back twice as hard.”)

After the above attack

...longtime Democratic strategist Michael Meehan was caught on videotape shoving a reporter for the [conservative] Weekly Standard into a metal railing…

It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on health care.

And let’s not forget the G20.  Whenever they get together, the riots and arson comes from the left for purely political reasons.

I know, I know, you specifically mentioned those on the left shooting those on the right.  But what about bombs?

It was a liberal who brought bombs to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Liberal Bill Ayres was in a group that used bombs for partisan attacks.

Likewise, the Unabomber was a far leftist who resorted to bombs for his political ideology.

Ok, you want guns, here you go:

Shots fired at Knoxville Bush-Cheney office.

And let’s not forget the Granddaddy of them all:

Lee Harvey Oswald (far leftist) shot and killed President Kennedy (who by today’s standards would be a conservative.)  Pro-Castro Oswald, unlike Hinkley who shot Reagan, had partisan political motivations to shoot the president.

Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

...while examples of the reverse exist in abundance.

I don’t deny that those on the right have shot those on the left.  Sadly and unfortunately, this is true.  But one of my points was that this is a human problem, not limited (and probably not even more more prevalent) among one or more political ideologies.

Unless one side advocates gun control.

Write4U - 21 January 2011 12:12 PM

Only conservatives espouse the violent overthrow of the government or resisting authority with violence AND have the guns to make it true.

I’m tired of providing links and doing your homework for you.  Crack a history book or a newspaper sometime to study the violent left-wing terrorists who advocate the same thing the violent right-wing terrorists do (albeit from a far left instead of a far right position.)  Here’s a start for you:  “Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat.”  You know who said that?  The FBI.

I agree that there are Extremists on both sides, but again, seems to me “conservative rightists” are arguing for more guns and freedom of carrying them in public. So, in place of a fistfight, we get a drawing of guns.
Like Green Peace “attacking” a whaling ship? Lashing oneself to a tree? (I disapprove of driving nails). The political viewpoint of a liberal is a more civilized, humane society, where guns are no longer used or necessary to settle disputes. 

Sadly, you and many other allegedly skeptical rational thinkers on this board are just as prone to Confirmation Bias and other flawed thinking that plague the woo woo crowd.  And you appear to be blind to it.

I see it as a matter of balance between freedoms (an interpretive right) and controls (a social command).
As long as can be proven that guns kill people (even accidentally), it seems reasonable to have certain standards in place for ownership and use of a fire-arm or any thing which poses a potential danger to society while in operation. We demand competency in guiding other deadly projectiles or hazardous materials, i.e. cars, motorcycles, planes, radioactive materials.
Stricter oversight will result in fewer gun deaths, that alone is persuasive.

[ Edited: 21 January 2011 06:39 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2011 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 21 January 2011 06:11 PM

Unless one side advocates gun control.

For starters you are Moving the Goal Post.  First it was claimed only righties use violent rhetoric.  When it was shown that lefties use just as violent rhetoric just as much as righties the Goal Post was moved to claim that only righties use actual violence motivated by politics. When it was shown that lefites also use violence motivated by politics, now you Move the Goal Post again and claim that since lefites generally support one political idea that makes it better than the righties.  Moving the Goal Post as a means of Special Pleading.

Secondly, your premise is flawed in that every study shows that gun control does not reduce crime or shootings.  You only look at the bad things that happen as a result of guns and you ignore every positive use of them.  That’s like only measuring car accident deaths and nothing else and concluding that cars are just too dangerous to have around.  I do not want to get into a debate about gun control because the left has already lost this debate but they just refuse to accept that fact. 

A very sad and unfortunate event took place in Arizona.  And no one political ideology or high profile political proponent had anything to do with it.  But certain highly emotional, irrational thinking people insist otherwise.  By admitting that and seeing the flaws in their thinking and correcting their logical fallacies, they would become better skeptics.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2011 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15400
Joined  2006-02-14

Interesting graph from an Op-Ed in today’s NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/21/opinion/21blowimg.html

(Unfortunately it’s too big to embed or upload).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1