Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/14/11 10:17 AM, Xcyper33 wrote:

At 1/13/11 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/13/11 01:18 PM, Xcyper33 wrote: I know you'd like to write off as 'insane' because it's pretty good damage control, ...

*sigh*

First of all, I'm not saying it is absolutely impossible for someone to be inspired to kill based upon radical political beliefs. I have a graduate degree in political science and my research interests are terrorism and rogue regimes. I think I'm fairly well qualified to ajudge when a person is acting out of a purely political one and when they are simply bat-shit insane.

Well, let's wait for more credible info on this guy. Because right now we don't know everything. So don't rule him out as bat-shit insane. I bet that you didn't rule out the muslim at fort hood as bat shit insane.

Blam
Bazinga
Ka-pow
Freaky

I ask you again...are you following the news? Because in all honesty, if at this point you're saying "lets wait for more credible info" you're either very naive, delusional or very poorly informed on the topic.

As for the Ft. Hood shooter; I am a bona fide expert when it comes to terrorism (in other words I know politically motivated violence when I see it). So as the facts distilled about how the Ft. Hood shooter was dressed and what he yelled and facts about his military service and off-duty associates the picture of an Islamist terrorist did emerge.

But I did not just assume that the Major was a Jihadist. I had to wait for the facts to come in. I'll even go further back to 1995 when I was an undergrad and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. Most around me assumed it was a Muslim. But for me the MO just wasn't right.

The bomber hit a small city in the Midwest, not the usual target of Jihadists. Furthermore, there was nothing there of importance or symbolic enough to be of interest to al-Qaida. But I knew about right-wing militia groups and once I found out the Murrah building housed an FBI office I knew which group or political affiliation the bomber would come from.

A friend told me it was probably an Arab.

I told her it was probably a someone who looked like me (a blonde-hair, blue-eyed white guy).

One can look at it as a political agenda, but still you can't just turn a blind eye on the possibility. I'm not saying he DID do it because it was political, I'm arguing against the point that its impossible for someone to assassinate for political reasons.

And I never did turn a blind eye. That would just be stupid in a case where someone walks up to a politician and starts shooting. Furthermore: NO ONE is arguing that it is IMPOSSIBLE to assasinate a politician for political reasons. In fact, most ppl would probably define assasination as predominately political in nature.

So what you are arguing against...isn't an argument that anyone here is having with you.

Finally, you act as if the jury is still out and there is no evidence as to Loughner's motivations. But what is obviously an inconvient truth for you is: Jared Lee Loughner is a severely mentally ill individual whose actions CANNOT be attributed to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or any other Right-winger.

No I did not. My argument was about the concept of someone assassinating someone else with politics being the motive.

So my friend, it seems that the one in denial here is not me...but you.

I'm not arguing on him alone, I'm arguing on the concept of someone assassinating someone else on politics. Also citation needed plz.

Let's go to the tape:

At 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: I bet anyone $2000 via Paypall that when they come out with more information on this guy his politics will lean far right.

At 1/13/11 01:18 PM, Xcyper33 wrote:

At 1/13/11 01:04 PM, TheMason wrote: He is an insane person with a totally incoherent political philosophy.

I know you'd like to write off as 'insane' because it's pretty good damage control, and if the situation was reversed, I'm absolutely sure you'd be singing a different tune, but to say that it is absolutely impossible for someone to try to take priority in his/her own hands based on how passionate he is about his/her politics is being naive and delusional. Like religion, politics is an extremely passionate subject. It is completely plausible that a nutty person who takes things 'too' seriously would attempt something because he believes what he is doing is right.

People have killed other people for far more trivial things then this.

Sorry my friend, but: "I'm not arguing on him alone, I'm arguing on the concept of someone assassinating someone else on politics." has NOT been what you've been arguing.

In your first post you want to bet that this guy will turn out to be far-right...after this possibility has been pretty much eliminated.

Then in your response to me you said that I would like to just "write it of as insane". You make this "assassinations can be political" argumentin support of your assumption that this guy was going to be a right-wing nutjob. It has been a supporting argument this whole time, so please stop pretending that this has been your main point the entire time. Especially when no one has been arguing that politics never play a part in assassination!

At 1/13/11 11:30 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 1/13/11 10:09 PM, TheMason wrote: But I don't think you'd have anyone getting overly eager to have the deranged lunatic turn-out to be from the political opposition.

If you were a politician or involved with politics in some manner, it would be in your interest to have this story spun in a way that denigrates your political opposition. ... , they would probably not miss the opportunity to put a spin on it.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you to a point. Yes, regardless of political beliefs there would be a temptation to spin or otherwise use tragedy for your side's benefit. Look at Iraq, it is not unreasonable to think that Bush used 9/11 to justify going to war.

On the other hand, you've got to be careful about soaking your shirt in blood. Your actions can backfire, like I think the Commentariate on the Left's words since the shooting will hurt Democrats politically.

Especially when you jump the gun and make assumptions and assertions with little information to go on. You'd think someone would have taken notes when Bloomberg speculated that the Times Square Bomber could be a Tea Partier upset over healthcare.

Just because the United States hasn't had a terribly extensive history of violent political conflict for the past century and a half or so doesn't mean it can't happen here.

I'm not making that argument. I'm one of the last ppl who would.

The Pima County sheriff was out of line for his comments and Paul Krugman (among other) were absolutely distasteful, and

I don't find the comments distasteful or inappropriate -- they're just wrong. I doubt a 'less hostile' political climate would have deterred some crazy guy who probably just wants a claim to fame. John Hinckley, Jr. didn't care about Reaganomics or anything like that -- he wanted Jodie Foster to notice him.

You've got two things going on in this paragraph. The first I disagree with, the second I agree with.

1) Paul Krugman's comments are distasteful and were inappropriate and those commentators who called it blood libel (before Palin ever used wikipedia to see what it meant) were right. In the wake of the statements and commentary threats against Palin skyrocketed. What if his comments would have de-stabilized someone to kill Palin or Beck? The irony is his words could have caused the very thing he so piously pontificated against.

2) Assassination attempts against politicians are not always political. Yes, assassinations are normally political in nature. But every now and then (Tuscon, Reagan and Jonestown) they have nothing to do with politics but random insanity.

I honestly don't think you'd see near as many on the Right doing what the Left did this week.

Yeah, simply because they don't have an opportunity. I'm sure they would do the same thing the left did here if, say, Obama staged massive rallies on a regular basis and used imagery that could possibly be construed as violent.

He hasn't? He didn't talke about bringing a gun to the fight? Or kicking ass? Or punishing political enemies? And I'm sure the Left are so principled, polite and civil that they never compared Bush to Hitler?

However, they make countless swipes at his family history and personal background, claiming that e.g. he's not an American citizen, he's a radical socialist, he deliberately plans to run this country into the dirt (-- Dinesh D'Souza wrote an entire book how Obama is trying to realize his father's anti-imperialist dreams --), etc. (In the book, D'Souza claims that "banished a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House" because Obama is supposedly a radical anti-colonialist. Maybe it was because Churchill didn't like black people.

You cannot be president and not suffer crazy conspiracy theories coming from both extremes. So what is going on is not outside normal limits.

Mudslinging is to be expected; it's not a good thing, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. It isn't shocking.

Exactly.

At 1/13/11 10:04 PM, TheMason wrote: You do realize that MSNBC is just as bad as FOX, don't you? I mean I've heard Keith Olbermann make some very hateful and even violent comments on his show.

No, I do not realize that. In fact, I disagree.

However, if you can find me a quote made by Olbermann where he calls for people to grab their guns and kill people, then I'd be more than happy to condemn him along with the nutballs on FOX who do just that.

Furthermore, an attack on FOX doesn't really do anything to deconstruct or argue against my point. There are people on the Left who use violent rhetoric all the time. Furthermore, you have Van Jones appointed Green Jobs Czar (for a little while) in the Obama administration who was an avowed Communist and 9/11 "truther". This individual has argued that blacks should take the whip from "the man" and wield the whip. If there is "the man" then all ppl are suffering under his whip...so why replace one tyrant with another? Why not just burn the motherfucking whip?

Your point is that the left and the right have an equal number of nutjobs who have an equal opportunity to broadcast their views to the public. I'm arguing that this is ridiculous. You cannot find me an equivalent to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin or Michelle Bachmann on the left who recieves an equal amount of attention.

Don't give into the false equivalency that just because there are crazies on both sides, all is fair and square. One side has a gigantic platform to operate from while the other one does not.

That you think that the palying field is not even is out of touch with reality. That you think it is tilted towards the Right is just plain laughable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We have fun, don't we?

First of all; MSNBC is just as bad as FOX when it comes to the rhetoric of its commentators.

All right, show me. Give me the quotes where the commentators of MSNBC call for armed revolution and the assassination of individuals they do not agree with. I'll wait.

Secondly, in 2008 Obama had so large of a war chest that he could spend money on advertisements in fucking video games! In the most recent congressional election the DEMOCRATS had the spending advantage.

Yeah, so what? The democrats had an economic advantage over the republicans, ergo they use more violent rhetoric and imagery than the republicans?

Thirdly, while the Right has won the war for the airwaves the Left's efforts in the cyber realm have been remarkably effective and filled the void that was left when Air America went tits up.

I hate to break it to you, but the reality is neither side really has a dominate advantage so what you use here to prop up your argument about "false equality" is rather weak.

The left is big on the internet, ergo they use as much violent rhetoric and imagery as the talk radio hosts on the right?

You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. I'm not making an argument on whether the media is biased towards the right wing or left wing, although that is an interesting argument to be had. What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of the violent rhetoric and imagery of the current political debate is coming from right wing commentators and politicians. That both sides are just as bad in this regard is the false equivalency I am referring to.

"They bring a knife...we bring a gun."
"'We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,"
"Get in their faces!"
"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
"Hit back twice as hard."
"We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick."
Republican victory means "hand to hand combat."
"Its time to fight for it."
"I'm itching for a fight."

None of these examples are as bad as the ones I've given. Strong language is ok in political discourse, but you're crossing the line when you go and outright call for the assassination of people you disagree with. Show me an example of that kind of rhetoric from the left and I'll join you in their condemnation. I hope you'll join me in MY condemnation of the highly public figures on the right who use language ten times worse than any of the examples you just gave.

-President Obama (Wait a second...doesn't the President of the United States actually have the largest platform in the world?)

He does. Thank goodness he doesn't use his platform to call for the death of his political opponents.

"My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"
-BoyBlue posting on the Daily Kos

No offense to BoyBlue of the Daily Kos, but I don't think he holds the same position of power in the American media as does Rush Limbaugh. Further, BoyBlue didn't say, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And I hope someone KILLS her!" Saying that someone is dead to me is a figure of speech, saying that you should kill all but a few liberals is not.

"There's only one way the tragic airplane crash in Alaska that ended the life of former-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens could have been better, according to New Hampshire Democratic activist and State Rep. candidate Keith Halloran: If Sarah Palin had been on it."
-Keith Halloran, Democrat who lost a bid for the NH House of Representatives in 2010

Wow, what a douchebag. I'm glad he's never managed to win election to any public office.

Then you have the British "mockumentary" in 2006 in which filmakers explored what would happen if Bush were assasinated.

I'm willing to give a lot more slack to artists and creators of works of fiction than I am to political pundits and elected officials. I saw Death of a President, by the way. I was expecting it to be much more negative towards President Bush, but I was surprised at how sympathetic the film was towards him. I'd hardly say that the aim of the movie was to encourage someone to carry out his assassination.

A competent political thriller. I give it 3 out of 5 hats.

this was the singular act of a madman and not attributable to the rhetoric of either side.

My conclusion is this: the nature of this most recent attack is such that we cannot know what triggered the gunman to commit this violent act, and pointing to one singular reason is impossible and most likely inaccurate. Was he mentally unstable? Unquestionably. What could have made him turn violent? Anything, really. I'm not prepared to blame this one act of insanity on anyone in the media or the government when it could just as easily have been blamed on a childrens book that a mentally unstable mind chose to interpret in an insane way. The only way we will know for sure is if he tells us what made him do it, and even then we'd have to take his word for it, whatever that's worth.

No, this one act cannot be definitively blamed on one side or the other.

However, this is just one act out of a large number of violent acts during recent years that have been consistently targeting liberals, Democrats, or government officials, committed by conservatives. You cannot ignore the trend that these attacks present, and you cannot ignore where these people get their inspiration. They aren't all deranged schizophrenics who take their marching orders from cartoon characters on cereal boxes, a lot of them are people who take the crazies on FOX seriously.

At the very least, it should give anyone in the media or the government pause before they go out and call for the death of someone they disagree with. I hope we can agree on this much, at least.

At 1/14/11 04:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Believe it or not, I actually agree with you to a point. Yes, regardless of political beliefs there would be a temptation to spin or otherwise use tragedy for your side's benefit. Look at Iraq, it is not unreasonable to think that Bush used 9/11 to justify going to war.

People regularly spin things their way for their own benefit. This is human nature. We do this among friends and colleagues, it should come as no surprise when politicians do this. Of course, politicians do it in a more calculated manner.

Especially when you jump the gun and make assumptions and assertions with little information to go on. You'd think someone would have taken notes when Bloomberg speculated that the Times Square Bomber could be a Tea Partier upset over healthcare.

That was pretty dumb. I wouldn't make speculation without having at least a little bit of information to go on.

I'm not making that argument. I'm one of the last ppl who would.

It seems to be a regular phenomenon in the media (on both sides) to continually downplay the possibility of politically-related violence (gasp!) in this country.

You've got two things going on in this paragraph. The first I disagree with, the second I agree with.
1) Paul Krugman's comments are distasteful

I found it to be somewhat frank. If there is any "inappropriately" violent rhetoric, he is at least somewhat right about the fact that it is coming overwhelmingly from the political right. But I don't find anything wrong with their use of such "eliminationist" rhetoric simply because this kind of thing should be expected in politics.

What if his comments would have de-stabilized someone to kill Palin or Beck?

Don't you mean 'motivated' rather than 'destabilized'? Someone who might want to try that now is probably already mentally unstable. Almost anything can push someone like that off the edge. In fact, Loughner harbored a grudge against Giffords for a really trivial reason.

The irony is his words could have caused the very thing he so piously pontificated against.

It would certainly be ironic, but it wouldn't be his fault.

He hasn't? He didn't talke about bringing a gun to the fight? Or kicking ass? Or punishing political enemies?

Yes, but it could be argued that it isn't as bad as using crosshairs to 'target' political opponents. However, I'm not defending his rhetoric; if it were all that bad the Republicans would have told him to "tone down his language," whatever that means.

And I'm sure the Left are so principled, polite and civil that they never compared Bush to Hitler?

Of course they're not. But I don't think they've ever taken swipes at Bush's heritage, questioned his nationality, accused him of being a radical socialist, called him a Muslim (which, of course, is astonishingly stupid), etc. I'm sure you can find some ridiculous things that the left-wing nuts have said, but they haven't made the news.

You cannot be president and not suffer crazy conspiracy theories coming from both extremes. So what is going on is not outside normal limits.

Of course this is normal. Political mudslinging has been around for centuries. I still think the right is the one that tends to skew the details more often, however. (The left spins things in their own way -- they moralize politics far more often, IMO.)

At 1/14/11 09:52 PM, KemCab wrote: If there is any "inappropriately" violent rhetoric, he is at least somewhat right about the fact that it is coming overwhelmingly from the political right.

This would appear true in recent times because the Right is dragging into politics people who know nothing about politics, whereas the Left is mostly leaving their PR-challenged members to host talk shows, run protests that nobody cares about, and burn things.

Of course they're not. But I don't think they've ever taken swipes at Bush's heritage, questioned his nationality, accused him of being a radical socialist, called him a Muslim (which, of course, is astonishingly stupid), etc.

Right, they just said he was a fascist dictator and a threat to democracy, installed by a corrupt Supreme Court controlled by far-right lunatics against the will of the people.

I'm sure you can find some ridiculous things that the left-wing nuts have said, but they haven't made the news.

Well yes, double standards will do that sort of thing, and there are at least two that are relevant here. There's the double standard for Bush's detractors because he's a Republican and there's the double standard against Obama's detractors because he's black and racism stories bring in views.

I still think the right is the one that tends to skew the details more often, however. (The left spins things in their own way -- they moralize politics far more often, IMO.)

The right skews things; the left just ignores things.

At 1/15/11 01:45 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: This would appear true in recent times because the Right is dragging into politics people who know nothing about politics, whereas the Left is mostly leaving their PR-challenged members to host talk shows, run protests that nobody cares about, and burn things.

I'm sure you could tally up a list of all the 'threatening' or 'violent' things that both sides have said and they would come up to be about equal. This is nothing new in politics, so I am not terribly concerned with the supposedly heated political climate -- mainly because it doesn't affect me, of course.

Right, they just said he was a fascist dictator and a threat to democracy, installed by a corrupt Supreme Court controlled by far-right lunatics against the will of the people.

In contrast, Obama's been called a socialist dictator and a threat to democracy installed by some massive conspiracy that also conceals that he was really born in Kenya and is a radical Muslim (or something like that). Moronic accusations come from both sides.

Well yes, double standards will do that sort of thing, and there are at least two that are relevant here. There's the double standard for Bush's detractors because he's a Republican and there's the double standard against Obama's detractors because he's black and racism stories bring in views.

Mainstream media is predominantly liberal, so no surprise.

The right skews things; the left just ignores things.

Both sides ignore things that don't suit their agenda. We all know Fox News deliberately distorts facts. That's pretty much common knowledge.

Liberals are just preaching moralizers, and I don't mean this in a "morals don't exist ooh I'm so edgy" way. They make issues out of things that are irrelevant to me or the common voter, e.g. gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc. (And even though I am technically a 'minority' in this country, I do not feel the need to identify myself as one, let alone address the fact. --) Then, of course, you have the environmentalist nutjobs -- as if the Earth needs saving.

At 1/15/11 03:11 AM, KemCab wrote: Liberals are just preaching moralizers, and I don't mean this in a "morals don't exist ooh I'm so edgy" way. They make issues out of things that are irrelevant to me or the common voter, e.g. gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc.

Yeah I know right? U.S. would be a lot better if they hadn't brought issues like these up at all.

At 1/15/11 11:41 AM, Xcyper33 wrote:

At 1/15/11 03:11 AM, KemCab wrote: Liberals are just preaching moralizers, and I don't mean this in a "morals don't exist ooh I'm so edgy" way. They make issues out of things that are irrelevant to me or the common voter, e.g. gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc.

Yeah I know right? U.S. would be a lot better if they hadn't brought issues like these up at all.

I don't care whether it changed the US for better or worse. It doesn't affect me now.

At 1/15/11 05:28 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 1/15/11 11:41 AM, Xcyper33 wrote:

At 1/15/11 03:11 AM, KemCab wrote: Liberals are just preaching moralizers, and I don't mean this in a "morals don't exist ooh I'm so edgy" way. They make issues out of things that are irrelevant to me or the common voter, e.g. gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc.

Yeah I know right? U.S. would be a lot better if they hadn't brought issues like these up at all.

I don't care whether it changed the US for better or worse. It doesn't affect me now.

Oh, of course. You don't have a mother, sister, grandmother or any other female relative who have greatly benefited from womens rights, is that it? Or, you do, but you just don't care about them?

At 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: I bet anyone $2000 via Paypall that when they come out with more information on this guy his politics will lean far right.

Are you still offering this wager!?

I blame Sarah Palin for her comment on the murders, which is distasteful. In defence of the "blood libel" comment she made, America is a free speech country, despite its questionable human rights abuses that are few in number (such as Gitmo, but that's the different story, along with its support of fascist dictatorships during the Cold War, which again, I'll say no more).

The U.S. should be glad that their close ally Australia is free too.

The shootings are done by a mentally incapable person who had no idea on what he was doing, except as a grudge. It is unwise to give him the death penalty under U.S. law, that states it is unconstitutional. In other words, he should be given life imprisonment instead (lock him up for a long time until death). I don't even like the death penalty.

At 1/15/11 05:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Oh, of course. You don't have a mother, sister, grandmother or any other female relative who have greatly benefited from womens rights, is that it? Or, you do, but you just don't care about them?

This is just a pathetic appeal to emotion that still doesn't change the fact that I don't care about these issues. "You don't care about women's rights, so you must not care about your own mother." This is exactly the kind of stupid mouth-spew that comes from liberals in this country.

I don't care about women's rights --or gay rights, or minority rights, whatever-- because I am a heterosexual male who does not identify himself as a "minority." This does not make me cold or callous or anything like that; it makes me sane, because I have better things to care about. Let someone else fight the windmills.

So...what if they were to take away yourrights? Would you care then?

Loughner's "Genocide School" video. This cat is messed up.

Genocide School

At 1/16/11 03:51 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 1/15/11 05:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Oh, of course. You don't have a mother, sister, grandmother or any other female relative who have greatly benefited from womens rights, is that it? Or, you do, but you just don't care about them?

This is just a pathetic appeal to emotion that still doesn't change the fact that I don't care about these issues. "You don't care about women's rights, so you must not care about your own mother." This is exactly the kind of stupid mouth-spew that comes from liberals in this country.

I don't care about women's rights --or gay rights, or minority rights, whatever-- because I am a heterosexual male who does not identify himself as a "minority." This does not make me cold or callous or anything like that; it makes me sane, because I have better things to care about. Let someone else fight the windmills.

So you only care about stuff that affects you personally. How is this anything but egotistical? I'm of the opinion that things that negatively affects those around me also affects ME negatively. I care if my mother is being discriminated against, I care if my sister is being discriminated against, I care if my gay cousin is being discriminated against, because I care about THEM as much as I care about myself.

At 1/16/11 02:00 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: So you only care about stuff that affects you personally.

If I cared about things that did not "affect me personally" I would have way too many things to care about. I have a limited amount of energy and cannot afford to waste any idealistic sentiments and sympathies upon issues, causes, and people that I not only do not, but cannot care about, simply because I can never hope to fully understand the context of the issues unless I experience them firsthand.

When I say that I don't like to hear the moralizing garbage that comes from the left, it's not that I'm personally opposed to them helping people -- sure, go ahead and do that; I might even help out if I were actually interested. I read and listen to the news to be entertained, to read some fact or event that's happened in the world and say, "Hmm, that's interesting."

Whether or not it affects me personally is a secondary consideration. I just don't want to hear someone preaching to me, because then it is not interesting. Here are a few examples of rambling nonsense which I pulled from CNN:

- Muslim commentator using the Tucson shooting as an opportunity to butt in and play the victim by writing about this supposed discrimination -- if you can even really call it that -- as if anyone else really cared. I think one of the comments sums this article up nicely: "What if it had been a leprechaun wielding a pixie stick?"

- Another typical liberal commentator here, who, like Krugman, condemns the 'toxic rhetoric' as if politics was not just an extension of war by other means. He also wrote another wonderful article calling Confederate soldiers terrorists..

- And of course, more gun control! That's exactly what we need! In most self-defense cases, "the gun is only brandished" so it's completely okay if you don't have enough rounds to defend yourself because you'll just scare the bad guys away. Right.

I'd have more commentary but that would warrant another topic entirely and would be a huge waste of my time. I switched CNN to the international edition simply so I wouldn't have to accidentally stumble upon the opinion section anymore. And these guys are 'center-left,' lol.

How is this anything but egotistical?

Oh, so it's egotistical for me to not pretend to care about every sob-story issue that comes along? I don't care about something that doesn't affect me and that I can't do anything about, so that must makes me self-centered (-- and as if not every single person on this planet were 'self-centered' by nature) . Typical liberal smear tactic -- call people selfish for not pouring their hearts out over every little white-knight fight of the moment.

I'm of the opinion that things that negatively affects those around me also affects ME negatively. I care if my mother is being discriminated against, I care if my sister is being discriminated against, I care if my gay cousin is being discriminated against, because I care about THEM as much as I care about myself.

So basically your entire argument is "if you don't care about women's rights, you don't care about your own mother." Yeah, I guess I could care if I or anyone I cared about were profoundly affected by some form of discrimination, but they aren't, so I don't. Is this really too hard to grasp?

At 1/16/11 06:14 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: So...what if they were to take away your rights? Would you care then?

Yes, but that still doesn't give me a reason to care.

At 1/14/11 05:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Stuff

Okay so here is your argument(s):

Your point is that the left and the right have an equal number of nutjobs who have an equal opportunity to broadcast their views to the public. I'm arguing that this is ridiculous. You cannot find me an equivalent to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin or Michelle Bachmann on the left who recieves an equal amount of attention.

I'm arguing that the Left and Right both have equal opportunity to spew extremist drivel and your reply is that there is not someone on the Left who has an equal amount of market share as Beck or Limbaugh.

I will grant you that when it comes to TV and Radio the Left has a very difficult time getting traction. MSNBC trails FOX in the rating and the Left's experiment with Air America was a failure. But does that mean they have less of an opportunity? Or does it mean that the Left's politics don't have that broad of an appeal in the US?

But this is a tangental conversation to the Tuscon shootings, nor does it prove or disprove that there is equal amounts of violent rhetoric on both sides.

All right, show me. Give me the quotes where the commentators of MSNBC call for armed revolution and the assassination of individuals they do not agree with. I'll wait.

And I'll wait for you to show me where FOX commentators have called for the same.

Yeah, so what? The democrats had an economic advantage over the republicans, ergo they use more violent rhetoric and imagery than the republicans?

In your original post you made it sound as if the Left-wing party in the US was being outspent by the Republicans nor were they able to get their message out or they otherwise did not have a voice. I was just pointing out that this was in fact: wrong.

None of these examples are as bad as the ones I've given. Strong language is ok in political discourse, but you're crossing the line when you go and outright call for the assassination of people you disagree with. Show me an example of that kind of rhetoric from the left and I'll join you in their condemnation. I hope you'll join me in MY condemnation of the highly public figures on the right who use language ten times worse than any of the examples you just gave.

First of all, about the worst example I've seen of violent rhetoric on the right is Palin's now infamous cross-hairs map. And frankly, I think people are reading way too much into it. Now I'm sure you can show me crap from ppl like the KKK but what I'd really like to see are pictures or stories about Beck, Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc going out and promoting violence.

But here's a few more quotes for you:

"Right now, I could kill George Bush, No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."
"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush. I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."
--Betty Williams, Nobel Laureate

Here's some pics of the Climate of Hate coming from the Left:
Link Note that one of the T-shirts was the "Kill Bush" t-shirt featured on Cafepress.com.

"I hate white people - all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em,"
"hrough South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on."
"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"
"I can't wait for the day that they're all dead. I won't be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead"
"I'm about the total destruction of white people. I'm about the total liberation of black people."
--King Samir Shabazz, New Black Panther Party (No affiliation with the Black Panther Party. Furthermore, this is the group the Obama DoJ dropped all the charges on concerning 2008 voter intimidation.)

"We really feel bad for poor Chuck, the U.S. Senator, the man who, uh, uh, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."
NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi

"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. d we be many, but you be few."
--
Greenpeace

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"
--Chris Matthews, MSNBC Commentator

"Fuck goddamn Joe the goddamn mother-fucking Plumber! I want mother-fucking Joe the Plumber dead!"
--Charles Karel Bouley, Liberal Talk Show host

----------

Here's the thing Hatter, I'm not entirely offended by these individual's speech. They have the right to express themselves however they wish. While the manner is off-putting itctually hurts any politician they may seek to support and allows the rest of us to spot insanity and dangerous people.

But my last example of violence coming from the Left is a bill by Congressman Bob Brady (D-PA) that would make it illegal for ppl to use language or symbols (ie: Palin's crosshairs) that could be construed as threatening to a member of congress. Not because Jared Lee Loughner was a deranged nutjob who targeted Giffords after seeing Palin's map...but rather to "...be safe than sorry."

No this is not the conventional violence ppl associate with bombs, guns, knives or rope...but it is of a more insidious type: the force of law.

At 1/15/11 05:37 PM, LotsOfEvil wrote:

At 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: I bet anyone $2000 via Paypall that when they come out with more information on this guy his politics will lean far right.

Are you still offering this wager!?

Hey back-off! I'm the one who did all the legwork with the links and shit! That money's mine, bi-otch! :-)

At 1/13/11 01:32 PM, Xcyper33 wrote: MOST people can take rhetoric normally. But all I'M saying is that it is completely plausible that someone who was already unstable can take the rhetoric in a completely different way then your average person.

This is the most straight-to-the point reaction I think. Yeah, it was debunked it didn't cause this shooting; It doesn't make the violent political vitriol (mainly from 'the right') any more appropriate. I liked what Bill Maher said on Leno though I usually don't like what he has to say,

http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/vide o/bill-maher-on-gun-lobby-11111/1269319/

At 1/16/11 06:14 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: So...what if they were to take away yourrights? Would you care then?

You do realize that Democratic legislators have attempted to seize upon the tragedy to errode civil rights, right?

Rep Bob Brady (D-PA) last week announced he would introduce legislation making it a crime for ppl to use language that could be construed as threatening to Congressmen. (I linked to this story already.)

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY) (both Dems) are writing bills that would make it illegal to purchase high-capacity magazines. This would have zero impact on gun crime, nor would it save lives.

Also in that story Sen Chuck Schumer (also a D from NY) is interested in making it where ppl who are denied enlistment in the military are also denied the right to buy a gun.

So here you go...four Democrats trying to errode our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. (Psst...those are rights for everybody!)

At 1/17/11 11:33 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/15/11 05:37 PM, LotsOfEvil wrote:

At 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: I bet anyone $2000 via Paypall that when they come out with more information on this guy his politics will lean far right.

Are you still offering this wager!?

Hey back-off! I'm the one who did all the legwork with the links and shit! That money's mine, bi-otch! :-)

Whatev dawg, I didn't need to do any research, I knew as soon as I watched this dude's youtube videos that he was not only insane and stupid but, most importantly, apolitical. Today it just came out that he was known for hating George Bush.

At 1/14/11 05:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: None of these examples are as bad as the ones I've given. Strong language is ok in political discourse, but you're crossing the line when you go and outright call for the assassination of people you disagree with.

Here's a guy who was shot in the knee who told an AZ Tea Party leader that "You're dead" in an ABC News town hall.

Also, do you have any more examples (beyond Palin's map) of right-wing rhetoric that is advocating the assassination of opposition leaders and/or figures?

At 1/12/11 10:10 PM, camobch0 wrote: The guy already had horrible mental problems, and looks like golem. But the media spin on EVERYTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG doesn't help the situation.

No kidding, when it comes to the blames game, it's "blame everyone but the guy who did the killings".

In other topic, ever notice how Bill Clinton's the only democrat gets ripped on when it comes to the sample lists of the presidents people would whine about?

Here's all I have to say about this:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Think about that.

At 1/15/11 10:59 PM, joe9320 wrote: I blame Sarah Palin for her comment on the murders, which is distasteful. In defence of the "blood libel" comment she made, America is a free speech country, despite its questionable human rights abuses that are few in number (such as Gitmo, but that's the different story, along with its support of fascist dictatorships during the Cold War, which again, I'll say no more).

Yep, I was having a conversation with the store owner I buy my comics from as he sells comics and older records and such. He had one that was a study of Hitler by an emminent psychiatrist (quite rare I'm told) and says every time he brings it out he gets reactions that range from "Oh how can you have that" to "He was a great man". Now he and I agree the people who have the latter reaction are people we find reprehensible, but they have the right to that view. If I want to have my right to speech, sometimes I have to protect the rights of someone else who's speech I find reprehensible.

The U.S. should be glad that their close ally Australia is free too.

What does that have to do with anything? A lot of our allies are free countries.

The shootings are done by a mentally incapable person who had no idea on what he was doing, except as a grudge.

You're a psychiatrist whose examined this gentleman?

It is unwise to give him the death penalty under U.S. law, that states it is unconstitutional.

Uh, where? If the death penalty is unconstitutional...why do we still have it?

In other words, he should be given life imprisonment instead (lock him up for a long time until death). I don't even like the death penalty.

So you because you don't like it we should do the opposite? Personally I'm more in favor of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment when we're talking about a case where the person is mentally competent (they know what they did, they know what they did is wrong) and they have no remorse and/or no hope of ever being let out. Why should the state and the fed be responsible for paying to house and keep this person alive in an overcrowded system already? I don't see the sense. If we have 100% certainty this person is guilty (like Charles Manson for instance) why keep this person alive? To me the only reason not to give the death penalty is if there is an infinitesimal chance that the jury made the wrong choice and the person may not actually be guilty.

At 1/20/11 04:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/15/11 10:59 PM, joe9320 wrote: I blame Sarah Palin for her comment on the murders, which is distasteful. In defence of the "blood libel" comment she made, America is a free speech country, ...

If I want to have my right to speech, sometimes I have to protect the rights of someone else who's speech I find reprehensible.

You know, I'm not a Palin fan. But at the same time, I'm kinda getting tired of all the new and/or false outrage at her use of the term "blood libel". I say "new" outrage for all of those who have been whipped-up because they read some commentariate pundit who jumped on her for using the term...then went to wikipedia to look-up what the term meant. (You know who you are.)

Now, I use "false" outrage for all the commentariate pundits and other opinion makers who went crazy over her usage. The term, while not mainstream common...is common in politics and their fawning punditry. In fact The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed called: The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel two days before Palin's speech!

In factThe National Review is compiling a list of high profile uses of the term preceeding Palin's usage:

Andrew Sullivan writing in The Atlantic:
A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of "perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives." This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.

Then you've got the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's founder

Damn computer...letting me post when I didn't want to!

Anyway...look the term Blood Libel has been used by both/all sides to describe attacks from the other side. It is not new, nor is it the equivalent of a racial slur.

If you're getting all upset at a certain person's usage (especially when you didn't know what the term meant beforehand)...perhaps the problem isn't with that individual but with yourself.

Shit, this is getting out of hand. Administrating the death penalty to mentally ill is unconstitutional. Oh well, despite my call for life imprisonment, they'll carry it out anyway. I am fucked.

At 1/31/11 06:00 AM, joe9320 wrote: Shit, this is getting out of hand. Administrating the death penalty to mentally ill is unconstitutional. Oh well, despite my call for life imprisonment, they'll carry it out anyway. I am fucked.

He didn't meet the requirements for "Mentally ill" when it comes to getting out of the death penalty. Loughner knew what he was doing, he didn't care it was wrong. He killed 6 people which included a federal judge and a 9 year old girl. There was hundreds of witnesses. If it were up to me, after he was convicted and sentenced to death, I'd put him on the front of the death row line, the less money we waste on keeping him imprisoned the better.

You may want to know that half a million dollars for life imprisonment where the killer could be locked up for the rest of his life and rot there is not expensive as the $2 million for execution.

Now, to prevent derailment, it appears that all of this had settled down.