|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Politicizing the AZ massacre | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Seizing upon the moment like opportunistic vultures, the media has managed to politicize a tragedy. (Hang on, let me act surprised). MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting. They also focused on the verbiage she uses, like "reload," to insinuate her violent nature towards political opposition.
As much as I couldn't possibly describe Palin as being any less of a qualified presidential candidate as I do now, I find the argument against her seriously lacking any credibility. Palin has been using speech like that many times when there are no political overtones attached, except the image she wants to project. She's obviously pro-hunting and strong gun right advocate, and on that basis she wants to identify with the NRA crowd. She's appealing to her demographic, which is not mentally disturbed, homicidal maniacs. To the extent that she somehow coerced an insane man to commit murder is terribly asinine, and I find a bigger correlation between the media's lackluster ratings and their penchant to politicize anything. A cheap and lowly ploy, really. I think any attempt to draw parallels does so on the pretense of a false dichotomy. Your thoughts? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Still political. Still capitalizing on tragedy. But, he is doing it in a way that actually works. As much as America hates Sarah Palin, they find it stupid and evil to lay any portion of the blame at her feet, regardless of her language or where the crosshairs were pointing on her campaign ad. Obama's speech you quoted sounded impartial, which is what it should be when all the facts have not been analyzed as of yet. I agree with your assessment and the POTUS on this instance. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Out of curiosity, if Palin had said that she wished someone would shoot the person, do you think she would then have some responsibility for it? Or if she called supporters to shoot someone, how about then? There has to be some point where she is capable of having some responsibility, no? Yeah, obviously, if she instructed people to kill her political opposition, she would be held liable to some degree. That's a non-point though. The point is that the crosshairs are references to Representatives supporting ObamaCare, not a "hit list" targetting people for assassination. The issue is with erroneous equivocation. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Palin isn't above scoring a few cheap points herself. Well, no kidding. I'm not defending Palin, she's an idiot. But the point I'm trying to make it that, even in light of her idiocy, it's really silly to try and draw parallels instead of placing the blame on, you know, the killer. It is unclear whether Loughner ever visited Palin's website, let alone whether or not he interpreted it as a hidden message to kill Giffords. Though I'm sure his lawyers will attempt to deflect his actions by throwing Palin under the bus. Could make a convenient defense. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
The first thing that Sarah Palin did after the tragedy was to scrub her Tweets and websites. That says a lot. The first thing that Sarah Palin did after the tragedy was to scrub her Tweets and websites. That says a lot. I don't think so, given the nature of politicians. I think her campagin managers knew that vultures would capitalize on it and scrubbed it so nothing like this would happen. Of course, scrubbing it just made it worse. You have to remember that Giffords pointed out ahead of time how something like that could be misconstrued. Palin and her staff, therefore, had prior knowledge of how it might look. And as soon as they realized she had been shot, they knew it would come back to haunt them... Which it did. Her campaign manager is, I believe, lying. She claims that she took it down because it lost its relevancy... conveniently the day of the shooting. But this, I believe, is for the reasons I listed above, not because Palin embeds hit lists on her web page. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Olbermann specifically mentioned the violence-laden and gun-themed rhetoric of a variety of public figures. My "favorite" has always been the "second amendment solution," which is an absolutely clear call to resort to the use of firearms if political success is not achieved by working with the system. I happen to agree with it within its proper context, and apparently so did the Founding Fathers. He also specifically mentioned himself, apologizing personally for having used violent terminology in the past. And he called not only on Republicans, but everyone to back the fuck down on violent rhetoric, and remember that there are nutjobs who will take a metaphor too far.[/qs] So what, though? People use gun terminology all the time in every day situations. That doesn't give Loughner, or anybody, a built-in escape clause to commit homicide. It's a figure of speech, and Olbermann KNOWS this. He's simply seizing upon the opportunity to shit all over Republicans, something Limbaugh happily does when it comes to Democrats. It's just political rhetoric, and a very inappropriate to time to do so. It's a cheap and pathetic tactic.
The fact is that tea-party folks have used the term "second amendment solution." It is a fact that the second amendment refers to the keeping and bearing of arms. It is a fact that Glenn Beck has brought up the Jefferson quote referring to watering the tree of liberty with blood. I don't find anything wrong with that. All that matters is one's actions and whether or not they can be rationally justified.
But when you put "innocent" imagery like Palins together with blatantly not innocent things liek "second amendment solutions" and "watering the tree of liberty with blood," what do you think is going to be the image created in someone's mind? Irrelevant to Loughner who thinks that the government controls grammar. Are we not supposed to use punctuation because he thinks the government is controlling it? No, he's just fucking nuts, and that's all there is to it. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You elute the fact that those crosshairs were on Rep. Giffords, that Giffords herself predicted that she would be subject to violence as a result, and that she was proven right. Is there a shred of evidence that Loughner ever visited Palin's website, let alone interpreted the crosshairs as a hit list? If not, then what relevance exists? This is nothing more than a cheap tactic for political sensationalism and nothing more.
we're talking about the targeted attempted assassination of a Member of Congress. How can that not be political? I'm referring to the media's attempt to somehow connect the dots back to Palin. Unless one can do so, it's incredibly irresponsible to make slanderous parallels during a time of tragedy. Even supposing Loughner did see the website, his misinterpretation could not somehow be an excusable defense anymore than a crazy man watching a movie about political assassinations, and him interpreting that as a hit. It's absurd and pathetic. To cling to something so asinine and irrelevant, you might as well blame Jodie Foster for Hinkley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
So why does that necessitate targeted, veiled threats of violence against specific individuals? Who says it is?!?! When Democrats did it, was it a "veiled threat of violence?" http://gratewire.com/...get-symbols-on-maps-hyprocrisy-alert Like the blog suggests, should they use teddy bears with hearts to pinpoint a specific location?
If appealing to the "NRA crowd" necessitates the use of metaphors and visual language that suggest the outright assassination of political enemies Outright??? Please stop being so melodramatic, this is blown WAY out of proportion.
for instance, Sharon Angle's suggestion that conservative gun owners exercise their "Second Amendment remedy" if they don't like the outcome of elections - then doesn't that speak to a large, systemic problem in our politics? Doesn't that suggest that the "NRA crowd" should be regarded with the same legitimacy as the KKK or neo-Nazis? No, lest you seek to de facto remove Thomas Jefferson as having been the 3rd POTUS, or to "trim the fat" on the Declaration of Independence. "But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Nobody's saying that Loughner should get a pass for this. Ultimately he's solely responsible for his actions. But not all figures of speech are, or should be, permissible in the national political discourse precisely because they may inflame crazy people into crazy (but predictable!) actions. Nonsense. So, on top of it all, you want to restrict free speech?
The Tuscon tragedy was an entirely predictable result of conservative assassination language. How do I know that? Because Giffords predicted it. Prove that Loughner even saw the website. If you can't, then any equivocation is baseless conjecture. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The Westboro Baptist Church plans to go to the funerals of the victims of this massacre and protest, claiming that these deaths should not be mourned because "(the) shooter had been sent by God to punish sinners in the country". Sadly, not surprising at all "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It's conservative murder language. Ah, right, so if Sen. Biden in '08 when running for president said about Republicans, "And at the New Hampshire primaries, we're coming gunning for you" *wild cheers and applause from the crowd*, it would constitute "murder language?" Or is it, you know, a figure of speech?
She's a dangerous idiot Yes she is, but not for the reasons you think. She's dangerous because she's an idiot and a big government interventionist.
Giffords has paid the price Giffords payed the price for idiotic people in the mental health industry who allow people like this on the street. As stated by a fellow student in one of Loughner's classes, she knew he was going to be one of those people who like Columbine or the VA Tech massacre. She reported his behavior, no one investigated it. I find more fault with professionals who surely knew this kid was a loose cannon. That's irresponsibility, not crosshairs on a website that no one can even prove Loughner saw or interpreted on. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
When lefties show up to Palin rallies packing heat in order to intimidate Palin and her followers let us know. I attended the rallies of both Kerry and Bush. I was attacked and physically assaulted (with my kids there!) both times. Both times it was by Progressives. That's not an isolated incident either. As with anything else on planet earth, violent people can be found anywhere and in any group. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Because that's what the left-wing media, and others such as the idiot sheriff, started telling us within a couple of hours after the shootings. A more accurate description is that Loughner is neither a right-winger or a leftist, but an anarchist. He burned flags on YouTube and complained that the government was trying to control him. But even more accurately is he's just a crazy loonbat! "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What on Earth does that matter? Who says Loughner had to be a conservative to be influenced by conservative murder rhetoric? It matters if he never even saw the website! How can he be "influenced" by something he may have never seen???
Seems like it's a pretty obvious fucking dot, Hyro. Don't you wonder why people objected to Palin's murder speech back in 2008? In 2009? Because we were all sure this would happen, someday. Hell, Tuscon isn't even the first. Did you forget the Ron Paul curbstomp? Did you forget "Kill Him!"? Did you forget "pallin' around with terrorists"? The IRS suicide plane? The shooter in Philadelphia who listened to almost nothing but Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? The Department of Homeland Security warnings about the surge in right-wing related violence? Fearmongering. Politicking. Pandering. That's all this is about. You have to be able to actually connect the dots from Palin to Loughner for any of this to be reasonable. Anything less is simply blustering.
Nobody's saying that Sarah Palin wanted anybody to die. But the reason politicians shouldn't use assassination language isn't because politicians shouldn't want their opponents to be killed, it's because, as national media figures, they have a responsibility to use speech that doesn't incite crazy people to violence. Horseshit. Where's your condemnation of video games and movies? You'd do better to boycott Hollywood than you would building these straw men in a house of cards.
Slander? Did Sharon Angle not invoke "Second Amendment remedies"? I don't even know who that is.
Did Sarah Palin put a crosshairs on Giffords' district or not Yes, to pinpoint which Representatives were pushing ObamaCare.
Did Sarah Palin urge her followers to "reload" instead of retreating, or not? Yep, so what? I already told you that she's appealing to her demographic. There's also numerous instances where she makes gun analogies that have nothing to do with politics. It's a figure of speech!
When Democrats did it, was it a "veiled threat of violence?" But Democrats didn't do it. Dart boards aren't crosshairs. What's the difference? Both pinpoint locations, that's why they're useful. I have a screen at work that uses crosshairs. you scroll the crosshair to get lat/long coordinates. Does that mean we use it to assassinate people, or to find assist us in a search and rescue? You're blowing this way out of proportion.
But Jodie Foster did bear some responsibility for the attempted assassination of Reagan. What are you talking about? Foster's crime is simply existing, and Hinckley thought his dog told him to kill Reagan. In Hinckley's warped mind, he thought he would be impressing Foster. How does she bear and blame?
Thomas Jefferson was talking about opposing tyranny, not opposing the will of the people. I know. That's what the 2nd Amendment advocates decry.
Frankly, Hyro, this is the kind of apocalyptic murder language I'm talking about. If you think you can find support from Jefferson for the idea of shooting your opponents because they beat you in a fair election, you're insane and dangerous. No, you're conflating. What happened in Arizona was a crime. This quote was specifically in reference to you talking about Tea Party members showing up to rallies with guns. Please keep the coversation in context. Thanks. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Same thing in most cases No, one has nothing to do with the other. If we're looking at political ideologies from left/right and top/bottom are statists and anarchists, we have: Top Left: Stalinists (statists to the Left). Top Right: Fascists (statists to the right) Anything in the bottom scale are minarchists (libertarians) and anarchists. Left/Right doesn't even factor in to it. All that matters is no government at all, to anarchists, because governments corrupt. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
BTW - many mention that the AZ shooter had a copy of the Communist Manifesto. He also had a copy of Mein Kampf. He seemed infatuated with the North Pole. Well, then he sounds like he's either full of shit and knows jack shit about politics, or he's just crazy. I'm gonna go with door number 2. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024