Congresswoman on Palin's "Hit List" shot

[ink the world]

After reading through this monstrosity of a topic Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. Those on the extremes of their respective political parties will remain that way. In fact, I think this only angers those on the far right even more. I expect that some of the talking heads on the right might even ratchet it up in the coming months. There is a real possibility of the divide in our country to get larger here. People have taken sides and are not gonna be swayed at all, typical.

2. BOTH sides are politicizing this. Some seem to be using this as an opportunity to evaluate their speech and hyperbole. I saw a clip of Olbherman basically admitting that his speech and tone can go too far and that he would learn from the tragedy. I havent seen anyone on the right do the same, if anything the comments from Pailin and Limbaugh seem to hint that the hate filled speech will only continue from them.

3. If the right continues on the path of denying that the inciting speech has no effect on people then they are gonna marginalize their movement....Yes those on the far right are licking their chops over a "free speech" battle, but the moderates they gained will jump ship immediately. This seems to be the course, Pailin getting even more hate from the left will make her that much more appealing to those on the far right. She will come out of this looking strong and passionate to the far right, while looking more of a buffoon to moderates.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Sorry man. rifle only.

Do you own a handgun?

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I agree with this 100%...

The rest of this is my opinion not connected to the quote what so ever:

The bottom line is this: There is and was a reason that violent and fiery rhetoric and campaigning had been looked down upon in the past, and even while it occurred so frequently as it did recently. The reason is that when you put out something, or say something that refers to violence and firearms, and taking back your country using second amendment something or other, you open yourself up to links to violent acts, whether through irony, or directly.

If the stage wasn't set with bricks being thrown through windows, bullets being shot through congressional office glass, hateful and violent death threats by people identifying themselves with the movement, then no one would even consider this a politically charged event at all.
I mean holy shit, look at what was happening, it was madness...The tone was heated to the nth degree. I find that the real surprise is that the event isn't politically motivated.
If you are playing into an environment that says violent things, puts out violent publications/broadcasts, and stirs up violent acts, then you should expect that is anything violent happens that you may be suspect to the event, connected or not.
The best thing to do is to address those behaviors and admit they were not in good taste. The wrong thing to do is to defend them and act surprise that being irresponsible has consequences.

This event was a perfect synonym for what was being proposed by certain members of the tea party. The second amendment wasn't being addressed at all in the political discourse, yet all I hear about is gun rights this, gun rights that, people walking around with guns at public/political events like this is the Gaza strip or something. Why are they pushing this whole gun presence thing so hard if it isn't even being addressed by the government at all?

Oh I know, Its a tongue and cheek way to say that I could shoot you if you aren't the political presence I want to see in power. It was like little tea party pinkertons, using intimidation tactics to try to make their point more visible, when it ends up it just isolates and obscures their point. That is the only rational explanation I could come up with for such firearm presence and rhetoric, when the topic of firearms isn't even on the political radar. And yes, I see that as childish, backward, distracting, and irresponsible.

The second amendment is so fucking safe in this country it's not even funny, especially now. It's the one thing the president will never touch. That and abortion. You will never have to worry about either of those topics being addressed for at least the next two years, probably 6.

That was the firearm tone, that was behind all of the tea party views.
I don't agree with the tea party's views, but thats life, and they have every right that I have to enjoy those views, broadcast them, believe in them, and defend them in public discourse.
I am offended by their threatening tone and I do see a connection in the thinking between gun rhetoric and gun violence. This isn't a rap video, or full metal jacket, this is real life.
Talking about guns comes with a certain degree of responsibility, and when that responsibility is abandoned you connect yourself to all forms of violent guns acts, as you are mentally tapping into the same thought process of using guns for violence, therefore making your once "innocent" actions seem to endorse such behavior.
Best thing to do is not even go there in the first place. You never hear regular people candidly speaking of each others death, or the possibility of a personal tragedy, cuz god forbid if it were to happen, it would associate you with the horrible event through irony.
That is what happened here, guilty by association, not motivation. It is a fact of life.

After reading through this monstrosity of a topic Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. Those on the extremes of their respective political parties will remain that way. In fact, I think this only angers those on the far right even more. I expect that some of the talking heads on the right might even ratchet it up in the coming months. There is a real possibility of the divide in our country to get larger here. People have taken sides and are not gonna be swayed at all, typical.

2. BOTH sides are politicizing this. Some seem to be using this as an opportunity to evaluate their speech and hyperbole. I saw a clip of Olbherman basically admitting that his speech and tone can go too far and that he would learn from the tragedy. I havent seen anyone on the right do the same, if anything the comments from Pailin and Limbaugh seem to hint that the hate filled speech will only continue from them.

3. If the right continues on the path of denying that the inciting speech has no effect on people then they are gonna marginalize their movement....Yes those on the far right are licking their chops over a "free speech" battle, but the moderates they gained will jump ship immediately. This seems to be the course, Pailin getting even more hate from the left will make her that much more appealing to those on the far right. She will come out of this looking strong and passionate to the far right, while looking more of a buffoon to moderates.

 

[Carthoris]

There have been people who killed who stated the reason they did it was they wanted to know what it felt like. I heard of an old lady who robbed a bank with a note. She said it was in here "bucket list" of things to do before she died. (No, I don't have a link to that).

no link then we call FAKE..lol

Heres a link to the story if your interested.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100330/breaking/100339953

 

[Johnnyorganic]

[video=youtube;3s4YfBKs39Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y[/video]

 

[Dirty Harry]

There have been people who killed who stated the reason they did it was they wanted to know what it felt like. I heard of an old lady who robbed a bank with a note. She said it was in here "bucket list" of things to do before she died. (No, I don't have a link to that).



Heres a link to the story if your interested.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100330/breaking/100339953

Thanks for backing me up on that one! +rep

 

[londonfog]

There have been people who killed who stated the reason they did it was they wanted to know what it felt like. I heard of an old lady who robbed a bank with a note. She said it was in here "bucket list" of things to do before she died. (No, I don't have a link to that).



Heres a link to the story if your interested.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100330/breaking/100339953

yup guess its not fake...

 

[londonfog]

[video=youtube;3s4YfBKs39Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y[/video]

For the record I think this is just as awful...love the song "Imagine" John Lennon rocks

 

[UncleBuck]

[video=youtube;3s4YfBKs39Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y[/video]

oh, johnny, so naive.

i'm certain that these people meant 'shoot' as in 'shoot with a camera', like a photo shoot. just like when sarah palin says 'take up arms', she simply means 'to vote'. totally benign. i can't believe you didn't get that. like, duh.

please tell me, how many of these people have a national audience and tens of millions of devoted followers?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

oh, johnny, so naive.

i'm certain that these people meant 'shoot' as in 'shoot with a camera', like a photo shoot. just like when sarah palin says 'take up arms', she simply means 'to vote'. totally benign. i can't believe you didn't get that. like, duh.

please tell me, how many of these people have a national audience and tens of millions of devoted followers?

Equivocation does not work here, Buck.

It is very CLEAR what these 'peaceful' people mean.

There is no campaign rhetoric here.

You are aware that 'campaign' is a political metaphor derived from warfare, yes?

UncleBuck FAIL #11. (Eleven is an arbitrary number, there haven been many more. I just like 11.).

 

[UncleBuck]

Equivocation does not work here, Buck.

what equivocation? they CLEARLY meant a photo shoot. just as clear as 'taking up arms' means 'to vote'

.).

are those titties? i LOVE titties! thanks man.

 

[UncleBuck]

It is very CLEAR what these 'peaceful' people mean.

not really, i don't pretend to know what is in their minds. perhaps you were so lucky to get the power of telepathy.

i mean, i thought when palin said 'take up arms', she meant to 'utilize firearms', but as she so helpfully pointed out in her "blood libel" speech, she only meant 'to vote'.

boy was MY face red!

and apparently, palin's rhetoric is completely devoid of any meaning or consequences, thus the speech of these people is likewise devoid of meaning or consequence. she taught me that only the media can manufacture a blood libel.

thus, the only thing we need concern ourselves with is if a major network or political pundit makes with the violent talk.

please thank sarah palin for providing the logic

 

[Johnnyorganic]

not really, i don't pretend to know what is in their minds. perhaps you were so lucky to get the power of telepathy.

i mean, i thought when palin said 'take up arms', she meant to 'utilize firearms', but as she so helpfully pointed out in her "blood libel" speech, she only meant 'to vote'.

boy was MY face red!

and apparently, palin's rhetoric is completely devoid of any meaning or consequences, thus the speech of these people is likewise devoid of meaning or consequence. she taught me that only the media can manufacture a blood libel.

thus, the only thing we need concern ourselves with is if a major network or political pundit makes with the violent talk.

please thank sarah palin for providing the logic

One does not have to pretend. It's spelled out in black and white.

Just watch the video.

But that's my point.

I'm pretty sure that as angry as those PROTARDS are, they don't REALLY want to start a SHOOTING war between our two factions.

If I'm wrong, then I truly underestimated your side.

After all, we're the one's who treasure the Second Amendment...
and all that it implies.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THIS ON THIS THREAD:

How many politicians or political figures do you see doing that outside of the tea party?
Corporately/Campaign Funded, National Platform Representative...

Oh yeah, ZERO, cuz no one is that unpolished and out of touch with the majority of the electorate to say such childish and lower mentality statements. Also most people have a thread of practicality and wouldn't say such things in public at all just due to the ironic implications, let alone popular figures.

Equivocation does not work here, Buck.

It is very CLEAR what these 'peaceful' people mean.

There is no campaign rhetoric here.

You are aware that 'campaign' is a political metaphor derived from warfare, yes?

UncleBuck FAIL #11. (Eleven is an arbitrary number, there haven been many more. I just like 11.).

 

[UncleBuck]

HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THIS ON THIS THREAD:

How many politicians or political figures do you see doing that outside of the tea party?
Corporately/Campaign Funded, National Platform Representative...

Oh yeah, ZERO, cuz no one is that unpolished and out of touch with the majority of the electorate to say such childish and lower mentality statements. Also most people have a thread of practicality and wouldn't say such things in public at all just due to the ironic implications, let alone popular figures.

yeah, johnny just glossed over this question of mine...

please tell me, how many of these people have a national audience and tens of millions of devoted followers?

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm pretty sure that as angry as those PROTARDS are, they don't REALLY want to start a SHOOTING war between our two factions.

i'm pretty sure they do want to shoot photos of sarah palin, just as they stated.

yay! words no longer have meaning*!

*exception: media's and pundits' words do have meaning and may incite a blood libel.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

i'm pretty sure they do want to shoot photos of sarah palin, just as they stated.

yay! words no longer have meaning*!

*exception: media's and pundits' words do have meaning and may incite a blood libel.

Your selective quotation gimmick gets old after awhile.

Like Olivia de Havilland old.

Hint: That's old.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your selective quotation gimmick gets old after awhile.

Like Olivia de Havilland old.

Hint: That's old.

you know what the real shame is? with the new format of the website, your selective bolding of words does not come through anymore. i miss that. that was like your signature style.

i almost missed the olivia de havilland reference. than my wife pointed out where i know that name from...



it's my wife's favorite movie, the poster hangs on our wall. that ain't too old...

now, with respect to selective quotations...it is part of the point of this whole argument. if i pick and choose what i respond to, and separate words from their meanings, the whole debate breaks down.

words do no good without shared meaning.

you could show me a twitter quote from some anonymous nobody that says "i hope palin is shot by a handgun and that the bullet lodges in her brain, causing her death"...and i could argue that the person just wanted to get palin a puppy. one with adorable, floppy ears. hell, if words have no meaning, why not?

and also with respect to selective quoting, you are guilty too.

please tell me, how many of these people have a national audience and tens of millions of devoted followers?

you skipped that entirely, selectively.

you know what makes bickering and spurring with a man of intellect such as yourself all the better? bickering and spurring with you while drinking beer and pulling a long-awaited harvest. not much more trimming to go....

 

[londonfog]

^^^^

 

[UncleBuck]

^^^^

i hope that is for the harvest!

just moved, and am now growing in a cold garage rather than the great indoors. the temps got down to 48 fahrenheit a few nights...definitely slowed down growth by at least two weeks or so. hopefully spring temps come around as soon as possible