Politicizing the AZ massacre

Perhaps you and I didn't listen to the same Olbermann piece.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.He specifically mentioned right-wingers by name, but right-wingers are the ones who typically use gun terminology, because it appeals to the conservative base who is more likely to own a gun.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.Olbermann is obviously a liberal. But liberal/conservative is irrelevant. What matters is the argument, and whether the position is based on fact, and whether the position would have a chance at achieving its stated objective.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.Some of this is hindsight bias. Looking back, it's obvious that using gun crosshairs to "target" political opposition brings the use of gun violence into the political discourse. I'm well aware that's not what Palin meant with it - she likes guns, her base likes guns, and it was just imagery that appealed to them.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?I see exactly what happened. I felt that way before the shooting, too, so it wasn't hindsight bias in this case. I had just hoped that the American people were politically mature enough that we had given up on the age-old notion of assassinations and revolutions to accomplish our goals, and that modern security measures should keep away the insane.Clearly, I need to revise that opinion. Apparently I had failed to take into account lax gun control laws combined with a mentally ill person unintentionally encouraged by violence-themed rhetoric.As for Olbermann, I applaud his suggestion that perhaps everyone can calm the fuck down on the violence-themed words in our political discourse. I can't see how less talk of "second amendment solutions" would do anything but improve the nation as a whole.

Kudos to Blundell for successfully averting an outrage on top of this heinous crime.Note that Blundell didn't use a "second amendment solution" to solve his political problem. He used words.

Irrelevant, unless you actually think that a "second amendment solution" is an appropriate response to losing an election, which is how it's been used so far.Do you really believe that violent revolution and political assassination belong in the toolkit of American politics? Really? Because a "second amendment solution" means murdering your countrymen because you disagree with them. Because you lost an election, and have sour grapes. It's saying "if I can't win, nobody wins!"The Founding Fathers weren't gods, Hyro. Appealing to their authority is as much a fallacy as any other authority. Referring to a "second amendment solution" to political problems like healthcare and immigration like the Tea Party does are patently absurd, unethical, and abhorrent. We aren't talking about a government setting up concentration camps here, we aren't talking about the dissolution of a representative government or a military coup.I don't give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers thought. Thomas Jefferson thought it was hunky dory to possess slaves. What matters is the argument, not the arguer, and many of the positions held by the Founding Fathers have completely different context and application today. Some of those positions, like slave ownership, are no longer acceptable in the modern world. "Second amendment solutions" are another one of those positions that have a different meaning today. You cannot, in any way, shape or form, successfully prosecute a civilian campaign against the US Government using small arms. The Army has fucking artillery. And tanks. And nukes. The context of violent political revolution has completely changed since the days of the Founding Fathers. Now, violent revolution and "second amendment solutions" means targeting and assassinating political opposition leaders, terrorism, and so on.Personally, I find that unacceptable, to the point that I'll openly say that any idiot who suggests a "second amendment solution" is in any way appropriate for dealing with political opposition is an immoral asshole with an ethical sense more akin to fucking Stalin than any of the American Founding Fathers....and I still won;t advocate shooting such an immoral asshole, because the very notion of murdering someone because they disagree with you is counter to the entire spirit of the Freedom of Speech, even aside from the fact that you shouldn't advocate killing people in general, because killing people is pretty high up on the "wrong" scale.

Assuming she's actually receiving death threats, what do you think my position would be on that, given everything else I've stated in this and other threads?I hate Palin. I think she's actively harmful to the nation as a whole, and I despise damned near everything she stands for, as a symbol of anti-intellectualism and just plain stupidity.But not for a moment do I think anyone should ever inflict violence upon her. No guns, no fists, nothing. Attack her with words and intellect, in the political arena to work against her asinine political goals. Anyone who says "Palin should be shot" or any derivation thereof is acting unethically. I'm curious as to what lies, specifically, you're referring to, and who's made them. Personally, I find the left/right dichotomy to be rather stupid, as most political positions don't really have such binary distinctions. With the exception of certain politicians and the talking heads on TV/radio, most people aren't so easily classified as "leftist" or "rightist." Regardless, I'd like to know for curiosity's sake what comments regarding Palin you believe are lies, who made those comments, and how it related to her allegedly receiving death threats.

Well, the implications for the Daily Show are certainly good.As for the actual Presidency...Caribou Barbie has about the same chance of actually getting the big job as one of the animals she "hunts" from a helicopter.She would, however, likely totally fuck up the Republican primaries. It would be really interesting to see where the political dialog goes in the primary debates.Personally, I think Obama is very nearly a sure thing. Not because he's done particularly well, or because I'm happy with him, but really because the very best the Rethuglicans have managed to put forward are mostly the guys who ran and failed last time, plus a few even worse choices like Gingrich. He wont get such an overwhelming victory this time, but I dont think any of the candidates on the Republican side so far can beat him. Osama got shot on his watch on his orders, and ObamaCare hasn;t killed my grandmother yet.