Is the political climate to blame, in part, for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords?

[RockFan89]

The shooting of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D) is all that has been on the news for the past few days. A lot of liberal personalities, like Keith Olbermann and Paul Krugman, have been flat out blaming the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives for the crime.

The one point that is always brought up is this map Sarah Palin posted about the tea party targeting certain districts to win in the 2010 mid-term elections:

It is undeniable that the political environment has gotten a lot more heated and a lot more confrontational over the past 2 years. So this is my question: Is it fair to place any blame on conservative pundits, or anyone else for that matter, for the shooting that killed 6 people?




My Opinion
The fact that such a political tilt has been taken with this story has been incredibly disturbing. If anyone had read the messages this guy had been posting on YouTube and MySpace, it is clear that he was just a crazy guy, plain and simple. But not only are notoriously partisan liberals placing blame on conservatives, but many mainstream reporters are taking time to ask and debate the question.

He hated the government, he hated the Federal Reserve, He admired the Communist Manifesto, He hated God, He abused drugs, does that sound like a Sarah Palin supporter to you? Just look at the video he posted a couple of weeks ago on YouTube:

[YOUTUBE]nHoaZaLbqB4[/YOUTUBE]


After seeing that you should have one reaction, this guy is crazy, plain and simple.

The picture Palin posted was no where near as offensive as what some are trying to portray it as. Using fighting and war as metaphors for a political campaign is nothing new and has been used by both sides of the aisle.

I've heard a couple of reporters say, "Words have consequences." That is utter garbage. Actions have consequences, words just convey messages, and the idea that anyone besides this gunman is responsible for this horrendous crime is ridiculous.

 

[Davi323]

The only one responsible for Jared Loughner's actions is Jared Loughner. Liberals blaming conservatives for this are full of shit. Conservatives blaming liberals for this are just as full of shit. People like Keith Olbermann love to cherry pick their facts in order to present this guy as "the enemy". Both Republicans and Democrats are doing it, and its appalling. I am fairly conservative, but the idea that this shooting is somehow the fault of Obama never crossed my mind. Jared Loughner is clearly a disturbed individual, who acted out totally irrationally. Sarah Palin didn't make him do it, Barack Obama didn't make him do it, neither did Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. Those that want to try to use this tragedy in order to garner some cheap political points should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I think you can assign blame to the conservatives in the same way you can assign blame to the United States for the 9/11 attacks, which is to say, not directly but abstractly. To clarify, it's not that America deserved or invited the attacks on the USA, but there were a lot of instrusive and damaging policies being implemented by the USA that incited terrorists, and that's important to understand. With that being said, no one knows right now why Jared Loughner did what he did except Jared Loughner - for all we know he tried to kill Gifford because he didn't like the way her hair swayed in the wind. Furthermore, I don't know how the liberal media is presenting or commenting on the attack, but I would hope they are bringing up conservative rhetoric (polticial rhetoric to be more specific) because it's a legitimate problem in the United States right now, and actions similar to this now have a lot of potential because of it.

What I'm actually getting at is that the American political system, and media for that matter is really disgusting, and the amount of ridiculous spin and propaganda being put out to the masses by individuals who should be more responsible is astounding. All the bullshit about Obama being a Muslim, which besides the obvious question of, what does that prove? Was meant to scare Americans who have been fed a dose of Islamic phobia for years now. How about Obama being a socialist? I would firstly be highly fucking surprised if half the American people who ever mentioned that whilst attacking Obama knew what Socialism was, or what it would mean for them as Americans. It's a talking point put out there, and it doesn't matter if you understand or not, all that's important is that you recognize it as a bad thing, and you can repeat it as a talking point. There's a lot of examples to be given, but so many arguments have been given against a party, or politician not with the intent to illuminate why it's a bad idea, or why it's not going to work, but with the intent to fear.

There's a lot of stupid Americans, and I don't mean that as a knock against the USA, they're a lot of stupid people in Canada as well, which is where I live, but thankfully our polticians don't generate the same fear campaigns as the Democrats, but mostly Republicans do. If you honestly think the Democrats or Obama have a literal plan to destroy America, you're a fucking imbecile. Unfortunately though, there's a lot of imbeciles, and if you get these people scared, then they're liable to do a lot of dumb things. If you put out a campaign about how Politician X is trying to take away your freedoms, and is destroying your country, and endangering your live and your families, you might do some drastic things, especially if you don't have the skepticism or intellect to question what you're being told.

So what I am saying is, no it's not fair to blame conservatives, or republicans, or Sarah Palin, or even Glenn Beck. However I really hope it brings up a dialog about the absolute idiocy which is American politics at the moment, and how the bullshit that is being dolled out by people who know should better needs stop, because this is the type of thing that can be a result of it.

 

[Loveless]

Is the political climate to blame, in part, for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords?

Time will tell but there is certainly a political element to it or he would haven't have targeted her specifically.
Before I get onto the next part, I want to address this blindsided and naive question of "Is he a Democrat or did he shoot her because he's a Republican?"
This is not an either/or question
In particular for someone who is fucking crazy, political idealogies are not confined to the two sides of a line. Ask yourself this, if the guy is a liberal, why attack the side you support? There are other issues here beyond social policy. That Giffords is Jewish may not be a coincidence but is racism part of the liberal agenda? Of course it isn't but the two aren't mutually exclusive to a nutbag reading various political manifestos.
There is also ever chance that this guy was a liberal and simply changed his view. If you've obsessed over an idealogy and then you suddenly realise your life sucks, you might feel you've been let down by the system you support. All these things are possible.

Now, political climate...
I genuinely do not know where to start with this.
If you create a culture of fear to deal with outsiders, it will eventually lead to a create a climate of fear of each other, then you end in civil war.

This is something you've been moving towards since the mid-50's at least, starting with McCarthyism, inciting a fear of socialism so great that the fear actually turns inwards and becomes paranoia.
Right there you've instigated the separation of left and right and moderation goes out the window. Anyone on the left is a communist and anyone on the right is a facist. It's "Them and Us" on everything that follows.

Communism (Fear of idealogy)
Race (Fear of outsiders)
Hippies (Fear of a corrupted generation)
Homosexuals (A continuation of the corrupted generation)
Abortions (See above)

And now we're back to the beginning and Islam.

What you're left with is a culture of paranoia and fear that's been stoked for 50 years by governments (particularly the Republicans) and more recently, a media who have just gotten completely out of control by saying whatever the hell they like and then hiding under the 1st Amendment.

The thing that has changed is what is being attacked. The political media have a responsibility to attack and critique policy, that is their job but instead, they are now resorting to personal attacks.
You simply cannot have a media that denounces someone as a traitor because you don't like their policy (not that policy has a damn thing to do with it). It's reckless, it's inciting hatred and it's totally against the fact that journalists are supposed to be unbiased. Seriously, what the hell happened to that idea?
I'm all for upholding the idea of free speech but my sense is it's become so twisted and abused in a poisonous system that it no longer represents it's purpose. It isn't just about the individual saying whatever the hell they want, people should also be free to do their jobs without someone placing a gun target over their heads.

 

[Calderownz]

Once again, I'm someone that feels a man should be forced to take accountability for his own actions. Where he got the idea, for that matter, doesn't matter. If you do something, then you're to blame.

Regardless, Sarah Palin and her people, for example, should have been a little less reckless with how they drew that map up. I get it... "target areas." So you put the scope on those areas. Harmless enough. However, it only allows idiots like Keith Olbermann to draw upon that type of thing when something like this happens.

That's reckless.

No, I'm not a Sarah Palin supporter, by the way. She's a dunce. However, I don't like hype from either side. Therefore, I criticize someone like Olbermann for taking this too far.

It was a silly, little graphic. It didn't force ANYONE to do ANYTHING. We all make decisions.

In general, I don't think it's politics that caused the shooting. It's the economic climate that drives a man over the edge. I can almost guarantee that if that man had an extra $10,000 in his bank account, this woman would have never been shot. By him, at least.

 

[Loveless]

Once again, I'm someone that feels a man should be forced to take accountability for his own actions. Where he got the idea, for that matter, doesn't matter. If you do something, then you're to blame

Accountability and responsibility are not the same thing. He certainly should take accountability for his actions but don't for one second think the responsibility is 100% his.
If you have a friend and you lie to your friend that his girlfriend is cheating on him, that she's slagging him off and that she's worthless and he goes out and kills her, you think you're not responsible? You can't just wind people up to breaking point and then send them off into the world, shrugging your shoulders and saying "Hey, nothing to do with me anymore".
The frankly fucking outrageous claims and lies propagated by the US media when it comes to politics are totally unacceptable. That they're now trying to shirk their responsibility by hiding behind your constitution is despicable. That the US public is still refusing to accept this because of the side they take is incomprehensible.
When a 9 year old girl is murdered in a political killing and polticians are more concerned with defending themselves than looking at what's wrong... that's when your country is terminally fucked.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I think there are two valid sides to the argument.

A) There have been lots of violent rhetoric gaining prominence in today's media, targeted at a group of people who are already angry the government, and the people who elect it. When you have someone who is angry around a bunch of other people who are angry, this person tends to be easy to influence. We've seen it at the Tea Party rallies - people threatening to come back to Washington with guns, people calling for the assassination of our president, etc. I believe it was only a matter of time before someone was actually stupid enough to carry these threats out, and end up martyring themselves for their political party. Which brings me to my next point:

B) This dude was fucking crazy. Yes, I believe his craziness is absolutely to blame, but that doesn't mean he wasn't tipped over the edge by someone who is telling their followers to violently react to the government, and then turn around to call his speech a metaphor.

Pundits like Jon Stewart have been telling anyone who will listen to not politicize the issue because the guy was a loony toon who was violent to begin with, but I don't doubt that he was politically motivated AS WELL AS crazy. You have a giant news corporation like Fox News promoting all kinds of right-wing ideology, as well as promoting people like Sarah "Craziest-Bitch-Of-Them-All" Palin, saying things like, "Don't back down! Reload" to millions of people across the country -- obviously these words are going to reach out to at least a few crazy people. And all you need is one crazy person to shoot a congresswoman in the head, and kill 5 other people.

It's only a matter of time before this happens again, and I sincerely do believe that Sarah Palin and Fox News have blood on their hands.

 

[Davi323]

but I don't doubt that he was politically motivated AS WELL AS crazy. You have a giant news corporation like Fox News promoting all kinds of right-wing ideology, as well as promoting people like Sarah "Craziest-Bitch-Of-Them-All" Palin, saying things like, "Don't back down! Reload" to millions of people across the country -- obviously these words are going to reach out to at least a few crazy people. And all you need is one crazy person to shoot a congresswoman in the head, and kill 5 other people.

It's only a matter of time before this happens again, and I sincerely do believe that Sarah Palin and Fox News have blood on their hands.

This is flat out wrong. Show me ANY evidence that Jared Loughner was politically motivated. Show me where anyone who knew him has said anything about him showing ANY interest in politics at all. Show me where anyone says he cared one iota about anything political.

You are doing exactly what the lamestream media is doing. There is absolutely no evidence that Jared Loughner gave two flying fucks about Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or anything similar, yet, you want to force him to fit into that mold, in order to gain cheap political points. Not only that, but you are being incredibly one sided. You want to pretend that its only conservatives who say things that, when taken completely out of context, and then taken to the extreme, could be construed as inciting violence.

If they bring a knife.....we bring a gun!
Hit back twice as hard!
Punish our enemies!
I'm itching for a fight!
Get in their face!
...So I know whose ass to kick!
I don't want to quell anger, I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry!

Who said these incendiary phrases? Answer at the end of my post.

The Democrats used a target map in 2004, just like Palins. Why is Sarah Palin's map so evil and vile, yet, nobody seems to care that Democrats did the exact same thing? But, its all Palins fault, right?

Liberal "journalists" can talk about blowing up Rush Limbaugh's head with a bomb, but, not only is that not incendiary, but if it was, it would be Sarah Palins fault.

We need to express caution when a Muslim goes on a rampage, because it would be wrong to jump to conclusions, but its perfectly fine to jump to conclusions that Loughner somehow was mind controlled by the Tea Party? BULL FUCKING SHIT.

The complete hypocrisy of the left in regards to this story is mind boggling.

This is the exact same bullshit logic that Tipper Gore tried to use in regards to rock and roll. But, you listen to that, don't you? Rock and roll is filled with violent lyrics, rap is filled with violent lyrics, yet, have you ever gone out and killed someone because you heard it in a song? Of course not.

No, wait. I am wrong. This isn't exactly the same logic as Tipper Gore. In order for that to happen, Jared Loughner would have to have been involved in the Tea Party, or a follower of Sarah Palin somehow, just like Tipper claimed people who listened to rock were affected. People who don't listen to rock and roll wouldn't be susceptible to its diabolical message, would they? Since there isn't any connection between Loughner and anything political, he wouldn't really be susceptible to it, would he? Loughner doesn't have any connection whatsoever to Palin, Republicans, Fox News, or anything else the Leftist media try to connect to him to blame it on Republicans.

Mozzarella, if you want to claim that Fox News, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin et al are responsible, find some fucking proof. Of anything.

And please, don't take this rebuttal of your comments as me placing the blame on the left. I am not doing that. I am not blaming the left for the Arizona shootings, even though I am conservative. George Soros didn't have anything to do with this...just like Sarah Palin didn't.

This is nobody's responsibility but Jared Loughner's. It isn't Obama's fault, Bush's fault, Rush's fault, Hannity's fault, Palins' fault, Jon Stewart's fault, the Daily Kos's fault, it is all on Jared Loughner, and Jared Loughner alone.

By the way, those quotes are from the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

 

[SalvIsWin]

No one is actually claiming that this Jared Loughner actually was motivated by polticial rhetoric, it's illuminating the fact that there's been a lot of irresponsibility in quotes and talking points, and that these things influence people. You can't even begin to say that there's just as much vitriol on the part of democrats as there is from republicans. In regards to the Democrat map - those are bulls-eyes, like the saying, and like with darts, it's not the symbol of a gun scope. Even so, even if it were gun scopes, it's besides the point, there's no way you can give me half as many examples from democrats towards republicans than I can give you vice versa. You would do well to watch this video for some of the absolutely insane quotes from the republicans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqmZs0VoPw

Here's what the argument is about:

• Irresponsible quotes coming primarily from republicans towards democrats, which imply shooting, killing, or acting violently.
• Jared Loughner shoots Giffords
• Liberals point out that things like this are contributed to by the irresponsibility in point number one.

Saying things like:

If this congress keeps going to way it's going, people are going to look toward second amendment remedies, and saying to themselves, 'what can we do to turn this country around?' I'll tell you the first thing to do is take Harry Reid out.

- Republican Sharon Angle

Put anything in my scope and I'll shoot it.

- Republican Joe Barton talking about Obama's crew.

Republicans are saying that these type of quotes have nothing to do with inciting violence, or that there's no way that their irresponsibility could have anything to do with this type of thing.

Seriously - watch that Young Turks video - they did the research. Seems one sided, no?

 

[Davi323]

so your argument is that because the media has found more quotes from conservatives (how hard did you actually look, I wonder?) that demcrats get a free pass? They were blaming this on Sarah Palin before the bodies were even cold. That isn't even hyperbole, they started blaming Palin within an hour of the news breaking. It's complete bullshit. Liberals have been trying to get the right wing extremist label to stick for decades...thank God most people are smart enough to know bullshit when they smell it. Like I said before...someone find any evidence at all to support your claim that Jared Loughner had any ties to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or the Republicans in general. Otherwise, you really need to shut the fuck up about it. Just because Giffords was a politician does not make it a politically motivated act. You guys are trying to take out of context facts 1,2 and 3, then adding them together to get cat. The guy is batshit crazy, end of story.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me who and when the last political party actually incited real violence in order to obtain political goals? Give ya a hint. It was the 60s, and the party didn't use an elephant as their mascot.

 

[SalvIsWin]

so your argument is that because the media has found more quotes from conservatives (how hard did you actually look, I wonder?) that demcrats get a free pass?

No, my argument is that there is extreme irresponsibility in political rhetoric which casually implies violence and shooting, that it's been increasing, that it's influential, and that it's primarily from the Republicans. Democrats don't get a free pass, the same type of violent and dangerous rhetoric they use I am also condemning and saying it leads to these types of actions.

Like I said before...someone find any evidence at all to support your claim that Jared Loughner had any ties to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or the Republicans in general. Otherwise, you really need to shut the fuck up about it.

That's not my claim, and arguing that right now would be difficult and futile. You're telling me what my position is, even though it's not, and then attacking the very position you made up for me. To clarify:

No one is actually claiming that this Jared Loughner actually was motivated by polticial rhetoric, it's illuminating the fact that there's been a lot of irresponsibility in quotes and talking points, and that these things influence people.

The guy is batshit crazy, end of story.

No, that's the end of Jared Loughner's story, and only for now. The story about irresponsible political rhetoric is what I'm talking about, and it comes mostly from the Republicans.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me who and when the last political party actually incited real violence in order to obtain political goals? Give ya a hint. It was the 60s, and the party didn't use an elephant as their mascot.

Irrelevant to what I'm actually talking about, and besides, there's been many political assassination attempts since then on Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, etc.

 

[Serious Jones]

Since I'm a liberal, it was easy for me to see the connection between the SarahPAC targets and the shooting. However, now that my passionate political emotions have died down, I've realized that it's become increasingly clear that this was most likely not a political shooting. Jared Lee Loughner was not mentally stable. Whether he identified as a liberal or a conservative (which I doubt he did with with either ideology) is really irrelevant. I will say that it's a chilling coincidence that crosshairs were put on Gabrielle Giffords' district, but there's still a logical leap being made. For example, I don't know why he would shoot several other people, including a little girl, if he were (relatively) mentally sound, but just too fired up politically. We really have no concrete evidence that Jared Loughner was politically motivated. We do know that he is a very unstable man.

However, though I don't really think anything political can really be blamed for this, I will say that this is a cautionary tale. The political climate is so heated, and has been for so long, that a great amount of people are believing, without a shadow of a doubt, that Sarah Palin (or the Tea Party, or whoever) is responsible for people dying. And really, it's feasible in this day and age. There is so much anti-Republican and anti-Democrat rhetoric being spread that assassinations are becoming feasible. Regardless of Loughner's intentions, the fact that a politician had been shot in the head was not that much of a surprise to me. I know that I would never run for any kind of state or national office in this time of turmoil.

When innocent people's lives are put in danger for political purposes, the political climate has become too inflammatory and dangerous. I know it won't happen, but I wish that America would take this tragedy, and instead of playing politics as usual, realize just how dangerous this widespread us vs. them mentality has become.

 

[Calderownz]

Accountability and responsibility are not the same thing. He certainly should take accountability for his actions but don't for one second think the responsibility is 100% his.
If you have a friend and you lie to your friend that his girlfriend is cheating on him, that she's slagging him off and that she's worthless and he goes out and kills her, you think you're not responsible? You can't just wind people up to breaking point and then send them off into the world, shrugging your shoulders and saying "Hey, nothing to do with me anymore".
The frankly fucking outrageous claims and lies propagated by the US media when it comes to politics are totally unacceptable. That they're now trying to shirk their responsibility by hiding behind your constitution is despicable. That the US public is still refusing to accept this because of the side they take is incomprehensible.
When a 9 year old girl is murdered in a political killing and polticians are more concerned with defending themselves than looking at what's wrong... that's when your country is terminally fucked.

Trust me, he is 100% responsible.

With response to your example about the girlfriend/shooting, I say this:

Am I responsible for getting him riled up? Yes.

Am I responsible for his mood suddenly changing? Yes.

However, has this type of thing not happened before? I'm quite sure it has. I'm sure someone has lied about someone else doing these types of things.

However, did all of THOSE people lose it and go and kill someone? No. Certainly not the bright ones. So, it's clear that you're not FORCED to do anything. You still make the decision. And if you had made the right decision, that woman -- cheating or not -- would still be alive.

Responsibility and accountability run hand-in-hand. While they are not EXACTLY the same thing, one should and morally does hold more weight than the other. You ARE responsible for your own actions. You SHOULD be accountable for them, as well.

You and I might just theoretically disagree on this issue.

Think of it with a positive context. Let's say I become president of the United States of America. My parents could be held responsible for raising me in a correct manner that would allow me to achieve such a lofty goal. However, I simply feel that I should he the one giving most of that praise. If not all.

I learned to be a great person.

I understood the balance of good and evil.

I chose to handle myself within a constructive and distinguishable manner.

I am responsible for my success. I would then have to take accountability for that.

Regardless of any potential influences, I made the choices. I made the decisions. I made the moves. It's ME.

If someone out there is not strong/smart enough to handle that, then they are sheep. But to blame ANYONE else but that person is to say that you can be considered innocent of some of the most heinous crimes/actions, so long as you have sources to what might have caused it.

Sorry, I simply don't subscribe to that notion.

When it comes to THESE types of crimes, I'm very black and white. Which is why I've previously shared that we may simply never agree on this issue. Which is fine.

However, unless you're not even close to being an adult, you should know the difference between right and wrong. And if you don't, its your fault. You can try to blame your parents or the educational system, but that doesn't cut it with me. You're an adult. Use your brain.

My parents raised me well, and the school I went to was decent enough. However, I've also had atrocious things happen to my family. I've gone through my share of horrible situations. I still managed to get through those portions of my life.

If I can do that, I'm sure that virtually anyone can. If they can't, they have themselves to blame. Especially with the technology presented to virtually anyone. If you can educate yourself, then blame yourself.

And don't half-ass it, take all the credit. You deserve it.

NOTE: You also choose who you allow to influence you. If Sarah Palin is one of your influences, then who do you blame?

Yourself.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think that it's fair to directly blame Palin or Beck or any pundit/figure for what happened. While I think there certainly are extremists on both sidees of the spectrum I don't think any mainstream politician would advocate attempted murder.

What I do think is that there has been a lot of irresponsible behavior from Palin, especially with the constant gun metaphors such as "Don't rebuild, reload." Yes, I get what she's implying but there is no reason why you need to use a gun metaphor. Also, the targets thing was unnecessary. You can't just make a list? You can't have a star next to them? No one looked at that chart and said "this isn't the best idea?"

While I don't think Palin or anyone else is advocating physical violence, I think at the end of the day she's planting seeds of things like this in the mind of people that might not be able to know any better. You couple that together with the easy access to guns and ammunition and it's not a good mix. Again, not intentional, but unnecessary and not an incredibly intelligent idea.

 

[Loveless]

Trust me, he is 100% responsible.

Yeah because people are islands, totally immune to all outside forces.

With response to your example about the girlfriend/shooting, I say this:

This should be good

Am I responsible for getting him riled up? Yes.

Admittance of responsibility, good start. You've just contradicted your 100% statement above.

Am I responsible for his mood suddenly changing? Yes.

Keep em coming

However, has this type of thing not happened before? I'm quite sure it has. I'm sure someone has lied about someone else doing these types of things.

What the hell? You've deliberatly gone off on a tangent because the next logical step is to admit your responsibility for what happens next and you don't want to admit it.
Wind 'em up, watch 'em go, then absolve yourself of whatever happens next? No, that's not acceptable.

However, did all of THOSE people lose it and go and kill someone? No. Certainly not the bright ones. So, it's clear that you're not FORCED to do anything. You still make the decision. And if you had made the right decision, that woman -- cheating or not -- would still be alive.

You can't take an individual case and apply it the public at large, that simply doesn't work. People react differently and the more people you speak to, the more likely one of them is to react.

Responsibility and accountability run hand-in-hand. While they are not EXACTLY the same thing, one should and morally does hold more weight than the other. You ARE responsible for your own actions. You SHOULD be accountable for them, as well.

The guy is facing the death penalty, he's taking accountability.
You've already shot yourself in the foot on the responsibility argument by admitting that you're responsible for winding them up.

Think of it with a positive context. Let's say I become president of the United States of America. My parents could be held responsible for raising me in a correct manner that would allow me to achieve such a lofty goal. However, I simply feel that I should he the one giving most of that praise. If not all.

Which is it you deserve, most or all of the praise?
If you say "Most" then you're admitting someone else was also responsible.
If you say "All" then you're an arrogant jerk

I learned to be a great person.

Who did you learn it from?

I understood the balance of good and evil.

Same question, or did you as a baby invent your own theology or morality that's independent of everyone else?

I chose to handle myself within a constructive and distinguishable manner.

That's what follows after you've been taught the above

I am responsible for my success. I would then have to take accountability for that.

What about your failure? Have you ever blamed someone else for your mistakes?

Regardless of any potential influences, I made the choices. I made the decisions. I made the moves. It's ME.

You're just disregarding everything in your life as an influence and it's laughable.

If someone out there is not strong/smart enough to handle that, then they are sheep. But to blame ANYONE else but that person is to say that you can be considered innocent of some of the most heinous crimes/actions, so long as you have sources to what might have caused it.

I'm going to go out, find a weak-willed person and brainwash them into killing Sarah Palin. Then I'll just stand back and say "Nothing to do with me, they didn't have to do what I said"
You seem to have some problem with shared responsbility. It's not all or nothing.

When it comes to THESE types of crimes, I'm very black and white. Which is why I've previously shared that we may simply never agree on this issue. Which is fine.

As someone with a borderline personality disorder, I can tell you that I'm truly the black and white one
You argument is over-simplified and basically states "I'm my own person, nothing anyone did ever influenced me" which is as stupid as saying "No-one taught me English, I just magic'd the information out of my own brain"
People are largely responsible for their own actions but don't for one second think it's 100%. If you make someone angry and they punch you, they're reacting to what you did. It wouldn't have happened without you, and that is the definition of responsibility.

 

[Calderownz]

Yeah because people are islands, totally immune to all outside forces.[/quotes]

No, they aren't. However, they CHOOSE the people and situations they allow to influence them.

This should be good

Admittance of responsibility, good start. You've just contradicted your 100% statement above.

Keep em coming

What the hell? You've deliberatly gone off on a tangent because the next logical step is to admit your responsibility for what happens next and you don't want to admit it.
Wind 'em up, watch 'em go, then absolve yourself of whatever happens next? No, that's not acceptable.

No, I didn't contradict myself. As I mentioned in my second post on this subject, certain things can be considered responsibility. Grade school teachers taught me how to read and write. They are responsible to a certain extent for any prowess I might have within those two skill sets. Or lack there of, for that matter. However, if I then use those skills to tell terrorists how to build a bomb over the Internet, you can't turn around and imprison Mrs. Applegate.

To bring the subject matter closer to the issue at hand, let's use an even closer base. Let's say I was a white man. I walked into a white supremacy meeting. I knowingly did so. They can throw anything at me that they would like to throw at me. They can tell me I should do anything and everything a certain way. They can tell me how much better life would be.

At the end of the day, I made the decisions. They had their beliefs. They shared them with me, because I allowed them to. It's MY decision to make. If I then use any of the information they give me, it's MY decision.

They could be RESPONSIBLE for "winding me up." But, I myself, am responsible for allowing it to happen. And anything I do, was a decision I made. This isn't complex shit. It's rather simple.

I give you a gun. Tell you to shoot the man that killed your father. He deserves it. You should do it. I'm responsible for giving you the gun. You are responsible for pulling the trigger. One of those two actions doesn't kill someone.

A weak, pathetic person can try and claim that they wouldn't have done it without being given the gun.

Bullshit. Man up. If you pull the trigger, you're the killer.

You're also not understanding the angle with which I am looking at this situation. Someone can be responsible for winding someone up. That doesn't kill someone. We're talking about the KILLING aspect of this situation.

Winding someone up doesn't always lead to death. Quite the opposite, usually. If you want to say that Sarah Palin, for example, is responsible for winding some crazy bastard up, by all means. Potentially, I could agree upon that notion.

However, the term winding up is rather interesting. It comes from the concept that someone is a wind up toy, able to be played with. Able to be essentially FORCED into doing something.

That isn't Sarah Palin's fault, regardless of she does or doesn't use it to her advantage. That is YOUR fault. You should be a stronger person than that.

ONCE AGAIN, she is responsible for something that lead to the death. I have not disagreed with this and if I have, I unintentionally misspoke. However, the actual KILLING portion of the equation, is STRICTLY the killers responsibility.

I could give someone 1,000 guns with the message of kill someone along with them. I am responsible for giving him the guns and a suggestion of how to use them. He is responsible for what he does with them. Giving someone an idea and a gun doesn't kill someone. Might lead to it, sure. But, doesn't kill someone. You still have a choice. Make the right one, or take all the blame. It's yours.

The guy is facing the death penalty, he's taking accountability.
You've already shot yourself in the foot on the responsibility argument by admitting that you're responsible for winding them up.

If I shot myself in the foot, I'd take full responsibility for it. I wouldn't blame you for the fact that we were have a back and forth.

Which is it you deserve, most or all of the praise?
If you say "Most" then you're admitting someone else was also responsible.
If you say "All" then you're an arrogant jerk

You're right. I should have edited the most portion out of the post. It's all.

Saying that doesn't make me modest, but it doesn't make me an arrogant jerk. It simply states that I have been influenced by others. Sure. I could have been influenced negatively by a different group of people. I made the correct decisions in my life, and listened to the right people. They helped me along. I still made the decisions. In terms of the decision making, it's on my shoulders. My responsibility. I take the credit, I take the blame.

Same question, or did you as a baby invent your own theology or morality that's independent of everyone else?

First of all, that's a totally different situations. Scientifically -- forget the common sense involved -- you are not at a mental capacity to take FULL responsibility for your own actions. Good or bad. However, we are talking about adults. They are then SUPPOSED to be mature enough to take what they've learned, and then apply it correctly.

And as I've said NUMEROUS times, your teachers are responsible for what you learned. (Not just teachers in school, either.) You are responsible for how you apply it. Separate issues.

What about your failure? Have you ever blamed someone else for your mistakes?

No. I fail all on my own, as well. I don't need a crutch. Thank you, kindly.

For the record, if at any point, in the heat of the moment, I did feel the urge to blame anyone else, then shame on me. It was a moment of weakness. Though, I can't recall any such moment having happened at any recent point.

You're just disregarding everything in your life as an influence and it's laughable.

No, what is laughable is your interpretation of what I'm saying. I haven't denied the existence of influence. Clearly, it exists.

You can take a band, that was influenced by what I would consider shitty music, and they could also be quite shitty themselves. However, if they had made the decision to go to school instead of pollute the air-waves, I wouldn't have a problem with them. Regardless, I wouldn't blame the older shitty groups. I'd blame each group individually for their own shortcomings. Like it should be.

I'm going to go out, find a weak-willed person and brainwash them into killing Sarah Palin. Then I'll just stand back and say "Nothing to do with me, they didn't have to do what I said"
You seem to have some problem with shared responsbility. It's not all or nothing.

I personally wouldn't be against you doing that. So, at least we have that in common. (Clearly joking.)

No, I don't have a problem with shared responsibility. As a whole, plenty of parties can be responsible. However, ONCE AGAIN, we are talking about the KILLING of a person. Only one man is responsible for that portion. Which is what we're talking about.

Think of it this way. Everything else could have happened the way it did. You take that man out of the equation and everyone lives. Sarah Palin is a grade A, silver dollar cunt of a woman. But, she didn't kill a 9 year old. That asshole did.

As someone with a borderline personality disorder, I can tell you that I'm truly the black and white one
You argument is over-simplified and basically states "I'm my own person, nothing anyone did ever influenced me" which is as stupid as saying "No-one taught me English, I just magic'd the information out of my own brain"

People are largely responsible for their own actions but don't for one second think it's 100%. If you make someone angry and they punch you, they're reacting to what you did. It wouldn't have happened without you, and that is the definition of responsibility.

No. Sorry. You punched the man. You're responsible for making him mad. Someone being mad isn't a punch to the face. That, you are not responsible for.

You should expect it, but you're not responsible for it. You're responsible for throwing the first punch and potentially starting a fight. Why do you think when two people fight, generally both go to jail? Because one of them had a chance to walk away. I wouldn't have, hypothetically speaking, but I could have.

With that, I think our discourse is all but done. I feel the air has been sucked from this conversation. I genuinely appreciated the back and forth, and I hope that the next time around we can be even more civil and keep things in their proper perspective.

Have a good one.

 

[RockFan89]

"Don't back down! Reload"

"Don't rebuild, reload."

Actually, the quote is "Don't retreat...reload"

It's only a matter of time before this happens again, and I sincerely do believe that Sarah Palin and Fox News have blood on their hands.

So if President Bush was assassinated would you say Keith Olbermann has blood on his hands? Would you blame the people with anti-Bush signs like these:

Here's what the argument is about:

* Irresponsible quotes coming primarily from republicans towards democrats, which imply shooting, killing, or acting violently.
* Jared Loughner shoots Giffords
* Liberals point out that things like this are contributed to by the irresponsibility in point number one.

The problem with that argument is he started stalking her in 2007: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/09/ftn/main7227843.shtml

Well before Palin or Beck became famous or Obama was even elected.

Additionally, do you honestly picture this guy listening to Sarah Palin? The media has way over estimated her influence. He was clearly not influenced by either the left or the right.

obviously these words are going to reach out to at least a few crazy people. And all you need is one crazy person to shoot a congresswoman in the head, and kill 5 other people.

You could use that argument for movies, music, and video games which become much more violent than anything any conservative has said. We don't adjust our behavior because one crazy person might interpret it in the wrong way.

there's no way you can give me half as many examples from democrats towards republicans than I can give you vice versa.

Well, Michelle Malkin has documented around 100 examples from the left over the past decade: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Anyone who paid attention during the Bush presidency knows that the left was extremely vicious.

Also, about 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative while 20% view themselves as liberal. The number of extremists would be double on the conservative side not because that side is more violent but because there are twice as many people.

Violence has not been a monopoly of the right. Robert Kennedy was killed for his support of Israel. Malcolm X was killed by someone from the nation of Islam. Ronald Reagan was shot because a crazy person was trying to impress Jodi Foster. The UNA bomber was an environmentalist.

And the left uses over the top rhetoric when talking about issues as well:
Global Warming -> The World will be destroyed if we don't do anything
Abortion -> Republicans want complete control of the bodies of women
Healthcare -> Republicans want you to die

Bush was called a fascist, a racist, a war criminal, a murder and other incendiary things that are just as bad as what Obama has been called.

I recommend taking a look at this short video from ReasonTV, specifically at the third point (at around 1:17). It is a sane and logical response to this tragedy.

[YOUTUBE]uWrsy5wyAnE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loveless]

I think it's time to simplify this thread and get away from speculation. Taking away the issue of whatever or whoever the hell motivated this maniac if anything

Does anyone here actually think the current level of political vitriol coming from both political parties and the media is acceptable in a supposedly civilized country?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

This is flat out wrong. Show me ANY evidence that Jared Loughner was politically motivated. Show me where anyone who knew him has said anything about him showing ANY interest in politics at all. Show me where anyone says he cared one iota about anything political.

Okay, you're right, I do not have any evidence to suggest that this attack could be politically motivated, but I will not concede to the argument that the political rhetoric in this country is entirely too violent. If you believe that there is nothing wrong with it, you're absolutely deluded.

You are doing exactly what the lamestream media is doing.

I'm forming my own opinions and nothing more. I have no intention of influencing other people to serve my own agenda.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jared Loughner gave two flying fucks about Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or anything similar, yet, you want to force him to fit into that mold, in order to gain cheap political points.

Political points? I'm not a politician, and my arguments aren't politically motivated. I have literally NOTHING to gain from voicing my opinion on the matter. I make these points because I sincerely believe the rhetoric is too violent in this country, and a vast, vast, VAST majority of it comes from conservatives.

Not only that, but you are being incredibly one sided. You want to pretend that its only conservatives who say things that, when taken completely out of context, and then taken to the extreme, could be construed as inciting violence.

If they bring a knife.....we bring a gun!
Hit back twice as hard!
Punish our enemies!
I'm itching for a fight!
Get in their face!
...So I know whose ass to kick!
I don't want to quell anger, I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry!

-"Bringing a knife to a gun fight" is an easily recognized term used in the english language, and it clearly presents with a metaphor. Tell me how "WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON WITH OUR GUNS," presents with a metaphor. I can understand "Don't retreat - reload," can be viewed that way, but "ARMED REVOLUTION," is not a metaphor, and you're deluding yourself if you think so.

Everything else doesn't even compare. You know goddamned well Obama isn't going to walk into the senate and start physically beating on Republican congressmen and congresswomen. But when you see a sign held by some redneck saying that he's going to come to Washington D.C. with his guns and start shooting up the place, do you really think he's just using clever language in order to incite an peaceful response? That's stupid.

The Democrats used a target map in 2004, just like Palins. Why is Sarah Palin's map so evil and vile, yet, nobody seems to care that Democrats did the exact same thing? But, its all Palins fault, right?

Actually, yes. When you associate all of your rhetoric with guns, shooting people, veiled calls for assassinations, and THEN put gun-crosshairs over a map, and you're making absolutely no effort to tell your followers that you don't ACTUALLY want them to kill politicians, I believe you take responsibility for when someone kills an opposing politician.

Liberal "journalists" can talk about blowing up Rush Limbaugh's head with a bomb, but, not only is that not incendiary, but if it was, it would be Sarah Palins fault.

I have never heard any journalist talking about blowing Rush Limbaugh's head up with a bomb. You're going to have to provide a source on that one.

We need to express caution when a Muslim goes on a rampage, because it would be wrong to jump to conclusions, but its perfectly fine to jump to conclusions that Loughner somehow was mind controlled by the Tea Party? BULL FUCKING SHIT.

Showing caution when a Muslim goes on a rampage? What the fuck are you talking about? What rampage? Have you ever seen anybody show caution when a Muslim starts rampaging? Last I heard, Americans started "Draw Mohammed" day. Americans reacted badly when South Park had to censor 50% of their episodes. I've never seen anyone show "caution" when a Muslim goes on a rampage.

I shouldn't have even responded to that point, it was a horribly-argued Strawman.

The complete hypocrisy of the left in regards to this story is mind boggling.

Sorry, you don't get to make up vague details about an event that never happened in order to call people with certain political views "hypocritical."

This is the exact same bullshit logic that Tipper Gore tried to use in regards to rock and roll. But, you listen to that, don't you? Rock and roll is filled with violent lyrics, rap is filled with violent lyrics, yet, have you ever gone out and killed someone because you heard it in a song? Of course not.

No, wait. I am wrong. This isn't exactly the same logic as Tipper Gore. In order for that to happen, Jared Loughner would have to have been involved in the Tea Party, or a follower of Sarah Palin somehow, just like Tipper claimed people who listened to rock were affected. People who don't listen to rock and roll wouldn't be susceptible to its diabolical message, would they? Since there isn't any connection between Loughner and anything political, he wouldn't really be susceptible to it, would he? Loughner doesn't have any connection whatsoever to Palin, Republicans, Fox News, or anything else the Leftist media try to connect to him to blame it on Republicans.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Lay off the strawmen.

Mozzarella, if you want to claim that Fox News, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin et al are responsible, find some fucking proof. Of anything.

And please, don't take this rebuttal of your comments as me placing the blame on the left. I am not doing that. I am not blaming the left for the Arizona shootings, even though I am conservative. George Soros didn't have anything to do with this...just like Sarah Palin didn't.

I'll concede that PERHAPS the right-wing media isn't to blame. However, I want you to tell me, with a straight face, that the rhetoric isn't too violent in this country, without bringing up the rhetoric of the left. Anything you say about the left is a strawman, I want to talk about the right-wing rhetoric in this country.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Actually, the quote is "Don't retreat...reload"

So if President Bush was assassinated would you say Keith Olbermann has blood on his hands? Would you blame the people with anti-Bush signs like these:

Uh, those aren't calling for the assassination of Bush. Not even close. Try again.

The problem with that argument is he started stalking her in 2007: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/09/ftn/main7227843.shtml

Well before Palin or Beck became famous or Obama was even elected.

So? The rhetoric in this country didn't suddenly become violent when Obama was elected president. Sure, it got worse, because of the collective victim complex the right-wing middle class suddenly developed, but believe me, the violent rhetoric didn't just begin then.

You could use that argument for movies, music, and video games which become much more violent than anything any conservative has said. We don't adjust our behavior because one crazy person might interpret it in the wrong way.

Er, actually no you can't, because movies, video games, and music are generally understood to be fictional mediums. This guy wasn't crazy enough to not understand the difference between fiction and reality. He saw what was going on in politics, and saw these politics applied to his reality. So he was pushed off the edge, and began attempting to assassinate government officials.

Well, Michelle Malkin has documented around 100 examples from the left over the past decade: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Anyone who paid attention during the Bush presidency knows that the left was extremely vicious.

Okay, two points here.

A) Some of you are beginning to forget that that violent rhetoric coming from the left in the past 10 years wasn't being perpetuated by the left-wing media. Those are individual thoughts coming from stupid, potentially crazy people. What you have going on today are a group of people being influenced by their chosen media corporation to react violently to political ideology.

B) Left-wing "hate" comes from fucking war crimes, not passing a bill that would serve the interests of the middle class. There's a pretty big difference. People are being taught to react violently to something that would serve all of the middle class, but cost a little bit of money to the richest 1% of this country. Meanwhile, the left reacted violently to our government entering a country under false pretenses and murdering a metric fuck ton of people due to the greed of a few private companies.

Also, about 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative while 20% view themselves as liberal. The number of extremists would be double on the conservative side not because that side is more violent but because there are twice as many people.

I'm not going to even grace this with a response. You look at that paragraph and think about it for a little while, then you can retract it later.

Violence has not been a monopoly of the right. Robert Kennedy was killed for his support of Israel. Malcolm X was killed by someone from the nation of Islam. Ronald Reagan was shot because a crazy person was trying to impress Jodi Foster. The UNA bomber was an environmentalist.

Who said that the only people to ever use violent rhetoric are right-wing Americans. Nobody EVER said that.

And the left uses over the top rhetoric when talking about issues as well:
Global Warming -> The World will be destroyed if we don't do anything
Abortion -> Republicans want complete control of the bodies of women
Healthcare -> Republicans want you to die

Global Warming - No one said the world would be destroyed. They did however say the world would be fucked up due to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, causing massive storms and extreme weather. This is backed up by scientific proof, which I won't even get into, because it's way off topic.

Bush was called a fascist, a racist, a war criminal, a murder and other incendiary things that are just as bad as what Obama has been called.

He invaded his own country's privacy laws with the Patriot Act, and entered a country under false pretenses, starting two illegal wars.

 

[Razor]

I don't think that it's fair to directly blame Palin or Beck or any pundit/figure for what happened. While I think there certainly are extremists on both sidees of the spectrum I don't think any mainstream politician would advocate attempted murder.

What I do think is that there has been a lot of irresponsible behavior from Palin, especially with the constant gun metaphors such as "Don't rebuild, reload." Yes, I get what she's implying but there is no reason why you need to use a gun metaphor. Also, the targets thing was unnecessary. You can't just make a list? You can't have a star next to them? No one looked at that chart and said "this isn't the best idea?"

While I don't think Palin or anyone else is advocating physical violence, I think at the end of the day she's planting seeds of things like this in the mind of people that might not be able to know any better. You couple that together with the easy access to guns and ammunition and it's not a good mix. Again, not intentional, but unnecessary and not an incredibly intelligent idea.

^^^^^

While no one can really be blamed for the actions of a paranoid schizophrenic off his meds and obviously on the last ropes of sanity, Sarah Palin and the Glenn Becks of today aren't exactly helping anything.

What the fuck kind of metaphor is "Don't rebuild, reload?" What do you think is going to be helped when you sit there and yell about people being a nazi, or a socialist, or a dirty baby killer? I mean really.

This is elegantly shown in my own day to day life.

My roommate and my girlfriend:

Roomie: "Hey, how can you be a Christian and be against helping poor people by paying taxes? That's not very Christian."

Girlfriend: "What? Fuck you."

Me and my girlfriend:

Razor: "You know, I see taxes as the way I can easily help the poor and other people who need help. I give the state 5% or whatever of my paycheck, and they feed the 20% of Arkansas that doesn't know where their next meal is coming from." (That's not an exaggeration. Nearly 17% of Arkansas families doesn't know where their very next meal is coming from.)

Girlfriend: "I just don't like being forced to do it. Let it be a choice. I'll still do it, just when I feel I can afford it. Let us donate to churches instead of the government."

Razor and Girlfriend: "We'll agree to disagree, but we still love each other."

Awww. See how that worked out? When I came to my girlfriend without yelling about Stalin and killing baby Jesus, we kept it civil. I even managed to exit the room without having my balls chopped off after we moved into a discussion about abortion, gay marriage, and other politically tense issues. My roommate ended up not being spoken to for 3 days.

That's a focused example. But expand it. How much better would our political discourse be if we came to the table treating each other like Americans as opposed to enemies? Democrats should not be compared to Al Qaeda whenever they speak to Glenn Beck, and Republicans shouldn't be treated as heartless Judas because they think taxes should be lowered.

But, you know. This shit terrible political vitriol that has formed into our current political situation should be there. It'd be impeding on our First Amendment rights to even imply that we should try to be nice to each other! Ugggh! Communists.

"I do think that it’s important for us to watch our rhetoric. I do think that it’s a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with our enemies if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifesto of paranoid mad men and what passes for acceptable political pundit speak"

--Jon Stewart

 

[Davi323]

Okay, you're right, I do not have any evidence to suggest that this attack could be politically motivated, but I will not concede to the argument that the political rhetoric in this country is entirely too violent. If you believe that there is nothing wrong with it, you're absolutely deluded.

See, in this post, you are being general about the political rhetoric, but in your previous post, it was limited to the rhetoric of the right...Wonder why? Why in your previous post, did make no mention of rhetoric that comes from people on the left? Your previous post was entirely unbalanced.

Political points? I'm not a politician, and my arguments aren't politically motivated. I have literally NOTHING to gain from voicing my opinion on the matter. I make these points because I sincerely believe the rhetoric is too violent in this country, and a vast, vast, VAST majority of it comes from conservatives.

Except that it isn't. It doesn't take much research to find the same rhetoric coming from the left. Its simply that the lamestream media doesn't harp on that rhetoric, because by and large, they agree with it.

-"Bringing a knife to a gun fight" is an easily recognized term used in the english language, and it clearly presents with a metaphor. Tell me how "WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON WITH OUR GUNS," presents with a metaphor. I can understand "Don't retreat - reload," can be viewed that way, but "ARMED REVOLUTION," is not a metaphor, and you're deluding yourself if you think so.

Bullshit. You are choosing to believe the left is speaking metaphorically, and refusing to believe that the right is doing it. Liberals don't hold the copyright on symbolic language.

Everything else doesn't even compare. You know goddamned well Obama isn't going to walk into the senate and start physically beating on Republican congressmen and congresswomen. But when you see a sign held by some redneck saying that he's going to come to Washington D.C. with his guns and start shooting up the place, do you really think he's just using clever language in order to incite an peaceful response? That's stupid.

And you know goddamned well that neither is Sarah Palin. Its funny, you are worried about the redneck, but not about the signs that threatened to kill Bush, compared him to Hitler, etc.

Actually, yes. When you associate all of your rhetoric with guns, shooting people, veiled calls for assassinations, and THEN put gun-crosshairs over a map, and you're making absolutely no effort to tell your followers that you don't ACTUALLY want them to kill politicians, I believe you take responsibility for when someone kills an opposing politician.

This is simply asinine. How stupid do you really think people are? Again, you allow for leftist metaphors, but not from the right. There were all kinds of symbolic threats to Bush and Palin, yet you ignore those completely. Further, if its about killing an opposing politician, then you have to conclude that it is the LEFT that is guilty, don't you? Look at the facts. Giffords, a Democrat, survived. However, Judge John Roll, a Bush Sr. appointee, who was recommended by McCain, another Republican, was killed. So, since it was a Republican that actually got killed, does that mean that you are going to put the responsibility on the left? You kind of have to, don't you, using your own words! Living Democrat, dead Republican. In your own words, you have to blame the opposite party of the dead politician, therefore you have to blame the left, since the dead politician belonged to the other side.

I have never heard any journalist talking about blowing Rush Limbaugh's head up with a bomb. You're going to have to provide a source on that one.

Ask and you shall receive. MSNBC's own Chris Matthews said it...probably had a shiver going up his leg as he did. Not only did he say it, but then he adds a taunt at the end...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Blowing-Up-Limbaughs-Head-198

Showing caution when a Muslim goes on a rampage? What the fuck are you talking about? What rampage? Have you ever seen anybody show caution when a Muslim starts rampaging? Last I heard, Americans started "Draw Mohammed" day. Americans reacted badly when South Park had to censor 50% of their episodes. I've never seen anyone show "caution" when a Muslim goes on a rampage.

What rampage? Are you fucking serious? A little firefight at Fort Hood ring a bell? You know, when Major Nidal Malak Hassan, a Muslim, decided to commit treason and kill 13 people, and attempted to kill 32 more? All the media, the same media that was blaming Palin an hour after, advised us all to be cautious, that we didn't know the reasons why, that it would be prejudicial to assume it was because of his faith, blahblahblah. Jesus Christ, this happened only 14 months ago!

Sorry, you don't get to make up vague details about an event that never happened in order to call people with certain political views "hypocritical."

Except it did happen. See above.

I'll concede that PERHAPS the right-wing media isn't to blame. However, I want you to tell me, with a straight face, that the rhetoric isn't too violent in this country, without bringing up the rhetoric of the left. Anything you say about the left is a strawman, I want to talk about the right-wing rhetoric in this country.

What a ridiculous proposition. You immediately want to hamstring the political rhetoric debate by automatically excluding the rhetoric on the left, so that it can't be used to counter the rhetoric of the right? Seriously?

I am not saying that the rhetoric couldn't be toned down on BOTH sides...but you focused entirely on the right, and completely ignored the left. Had you taken the time to point out that the left was just as guilty as the right, I wouldn't have blasted you. But, you presented a completely one sided argument, that deliberately ignored half of the problem. When you completely disregard half of the problem, it reveals that you are not willing to tackle the problem honestly, that you clearly have an agenda that you are more interested in than the truth.

I don't blame either the right or the left for what Jared Loughner did. In fact, given that this is one man, out of 300,000,000+ US citizens, I would have to state that it is extremely statistically unlikely that either the rhetoric from the left or the right is inherently dangerous. There simply isn't a big enough sample of people acting out to validate the opinion that it is harmful. At least, that it is any more harmful than violence depicted in movies, video games, song lyrics, books, or any other medium. What do you think is more likely to make an impression on someone who is mentally unbalanced? Some politician with a map, or playing a video game for hours on end where the sole purpose is to kill other players, a movie where the "hero" guns down 100 bad guys without getting scratched, or listening to songs that brag about popping caps in someone's head, etc?

Find me the statistical evidence to back up an assertion that political rhetoric is more harmful than any of those things I just mentioned. Yet, you won't call to tone those down, will you? Hell, this is a fucking wrestling site! The very fact that we are here means that we enjoy certain amounts of violence already! Whining about someone targeting a political district being too over the top violent when every week you watch programming where guys threaten each other, hit each other, slam each other on to steel grates, hit each other with chairs, slam people through tables, etc seems a tad disingenuous, don't ya think?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

See, in this post, you are being general about the political rhetoric, but in your previous post, it was limited to the rhetoric of the right...Wonder why? Why in your previous post, did make no mention of rhetoric that comes from people on the left? Your previous post was entirely unbalanced.

Well, I never implied that I had a balanced opinion. I don't need to sit on the fence in order for my opinion to be valid. I look at an objective view of what I could find of the facts, and formulated an opinion out of it. I'm not here to be a diplomat, I'm here to discuss MY opinion. If you believe my opinion swings left, then so be it.

Except that it isn't. It doesn't take much research to find the same rhetoric coming from the left. Its simply that the lamestream media doesn't harp on that rhetoric, because by and large, they agree with it.

Dude, you're comparing "Let's kick some ass," to "I'm going to shoot and kill politicians for passing a certain bill." Excuse me if I don't buy the strawman bullshit that LIBRULS DO IT TOOOO!

Bullshit. You are choosing to believe the left is speaking metaphorically, and refusing to believe that the right is doing it. Liberals don't hold the copyright on symbolic language.

And you're refusing to believe that there's no difference between commonly used terms in the english language and "LET'S BRING OUR GUNS TO WASHINGTON D.C. FOR A REVOLUTION," like that's supposed to be symbolic. I don't know who you're trying to fool, but I'm not buying it.

Nothing Obama said in your list of "violent rhetoric from the left" doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, incite violence against the right-wing.

And you know goddamned well that neither is Sarah Palin. Its funny, you are worried about the redneck, but not about the signs that threatened to kill Bush, compared him to Hitler, etc.

Who said I didn't have a problem with people threatening to kill Bush? Don't put words in my mouth. Hell yes, I had a problem with it, but I believe it's easier to understand these people, because their family could have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody's family was killed by a bill being passed in the Senate.

This is simply asinine. How stupid do you really think people are? Again, you allow for leftist metaphors, but not from the right.

"Next time I'm going to bring my gun to Washington D.C." is not a metaphor. I don't know what you learned about metaphors in grade school, but sorry, it's not a metaphor.

There were all kinds of symbolic threats to Bush and Palin, yet you ignore those completely.

I ignore those because those aren't as prominent as the violent rhetoric coming from the right. A few crazy people threatening to assassinate Bush or Palin (who I never said I didn't have a problem with) does not make a metric FUCKTON of people gathering in one place to threaten that kind of thing at Obama okay.

A common argument I see from conservatives not only on this forum, but scattered throughout the internet is, when they get called out for something, they try to spin it and make an argument against liberals. If the argument is, "there is a lot of violent rhetoric coming from conservatives recently," then it doesn't make any sense to say, "WELL LIBERALS DO IT TOO!"

Please, defend the violent rhetoric aimed at Obama and his administration. I've defended the left's violent rhetoric at Bush.

Further, if its about killing an opposing politician, then you have to conclude that it is the LEFT that is guilty, don't you? Look at the facts. Giffords, a Democrat, survived. However, Judge John Roll, a Bush Sr. appointee, who was recommended by McCain, another Republican, was killed. So, since it was a Republican that actually got killed, does that mean that you are going to put the responsibility on the left? You kind of have to, don't you, using your own words! Living Democrat, dead Republican. In your own words, you have to blame the opposite party of the dead politician, therefore you have to blame the left, since the dead politician belonged to the other side.

That's literally the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. You see, you're showing the colors of someone who is desperately trying to shift the blame onto someone else rather than get rid of the blame all together. I'm not going to put the blame on the left simply because a Republican was killed. I doesn't even follow your debate strategy here. No one blamed the right because a democrat was killed. People blamed the right because of the violent slogans it's been spewing out since the first major Tea Party rally, before the health care bill was passed.

Ask and you shall receive. MSNBC's own Chris Matthews said it...probably had a shiver going up his leg as he did. Not only did he say it, but then he adds a taunt at the end...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Blowing-Up-Limbaughs-Head-198

Then I concede this point, but note that he spelled out his comparison to James Bond.

What rampage? Are you fucking serious? A little firefight at Fort Hood ring a bell? You know, when Major Nidal Malak Hassan, a Muslim, decided to commit treason and kill 13 people, and attempted to kill 32 more? All the media, the same media that was blaming Palin an hour after, advised us all to be cautious, that we didn't know the reasons why, that it would be prejudicial to assume it was because of his faith, blahblahblah. Jesus Christ, this happened only 14 months ago!

Oh, you mean the terrorist extremist who shot up Fort Hood?

Dude, if you're going to compare all Muslims to terrorists, then I'm going to start comparing all Christians to the Westboro Baptist Church, as well as violent Catholic-related cults.

What a ridiculous proposition. You immediately want to hamstring the political rhetoric debate by automatically excluding the rhetoric on the left, so that it can't be used to counter the rhetoric of the right? Seriously?

Because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm not tossing a hamstring at your argument. I'm telling you to defend the violent rhetoric of the right, and tell me how the left's rhetoric from 10 years ago makes today's rhetoric okay?

I've already mentioned that it absolutely doesn't compare, but for the sake of the argument, I'm going to grant that both rhetoric from the left and right happened under the exact same circumstances.

I am not saying that the rhetoric couldn't be toned down on BOTH sides...but you focused entirely on the right, and completely ignored the left.

No, the violent rhetoric needs to be ELIMINATED on both sides.

Had you taken the time to point out that the left was just as guilty as the right, I wouldn't have blasted you.

Like I said, I never implied that the right was solely to blame. I think the right is a little more at fault than the left, sure, but I certainly didn't imply that the left can't be blamed.

But, you presented a completely one sided argument, that deliberately ignored half of the problem. When you completely disregard half of the problem, it reveals that you are not willing to tackle the problem honestly, that you clearly have an agenda that you are more interested in than the truth.

Like I said, I have absolutely nothing to gain from this argument, so I don't know what agenda you think I'm trying to push. The only reason I'm making this argument is because the violent rhetoric coming from conservatives is less valid than the violent rhetoric coming from the liberals over issues like 9/11, the war, and privacy invasion issues.

In case I need to say it again, I don't think taxing people who aren't you to fund a health care system YOU benefit from warrants people threatening to kill our President.

However, if I had family in a country Bush decided he was going to bomb to high hell over the possibility that their government had bombs (turned out to not be true), and they died because of it, I'm pretty sure I'd be a little bit more pissed off than people who wrongfully believe their grandmothers are going to be sent to death panels.

I don't blame either the right or the left for what Jared Loughner did. In fact, given that this is one man, out of 300,000,000+ US citizens, I would have to state that it is extremely statistically unlikely that either the rhetoric from the left or the right is inherently dangerous. There simply isn't a big enough sample of people acting out to validate the opinion that it is harmful. At least, that it is any more harmful than violence depicted in movies, video games, song lyrics, books, or any other medium. What do you think is more likely to make an impression on someone who is mentally unbalanced? Some politician with a map, or playing a video game for hours on end where the sole purpose is to kill other players, a movie where the "hero" guns down 100 bad guys without getting scratched, or listening to songs that brag about popping caps in someone's head, etc?

This isn't just one guy. I can name other examples.

Dr. George Tiller (worked at an abortion clinic) was killed after Bill O'Reilly spoke about him on his show. Killed by a guy that watched Fox News religiously, and openly admitted to it.

The church in Knoxville that was shot up because some old redneck though it was too liberal of a church. Killed two people. Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's books, religious viewer of Fox News.

Josh Cartwright who started killing police officers because Obama was elected president. Guess who his idols were.

Sorry, these don't compare to the people who are threatening the government because their entire friends and family were killed.

Find me the statistical evidence to back up an assertion that political rhetoric is more harmful than any of those things I just mentioned. Yet, you won't call to tone those down, will you? Hell, this is a fucking wrestling site! The very fact that we are here means that we enjoy certain amounts of violence already! Whining about someone targeting a political district being too over the top violent when every week you watch programming where guys threaten each other, hit each other, slam each other on to steel grates, hit each other with chairs, slam people through tables, etc seems a tad disingenuous, don't ya think?

Dude, you called me out for assuming people are stupid, but then assume people are easily influenced by fictional television shows and video games. For what it's worth, I think those problems lie with the parents, not on the mediums. I think it's safe to assume that none of us are influenced to solve our problems with steel chairs and power bombs.

 

[Kenny Powers]

The rhetoric needs to be toned down on both sides of the aisle. The shooter may have no idea who Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck is, or he may not even watch television. The shooter is a mentally disturbed individual that does read mien kampf and other white supremacist literature. Now just because someone reads something doesn't make them a racist or a killer, but someone with an impressionable mind can read this and listen to the hate filled rhetoric on the radio and in the news and make violent decisions.

Recently in Kentucky a non violent female protester was simply holding up a sign at a Rand Paul rally and Paul's supporters threw her to the ground and stomped on her head. Just look at that example and the example of the tea party spitting on congressmen using racial slurs during the health care debate. Its fine to speak out and protest, but these politicians are causing all of this hate to spill out to our streets everywhere.

Can't we have politicians that simply disagree without calling someone a socialist, nazi, terrorist. etc. The media is constantly fanning the flames of hate as well. The political climate may or may not be to blame for these awful crimes, but we should all take a step back before it gets even uglier than it is right now.

Also on a separate topic, I'm not anti gun but I don't think it should be so easy in Arizona or in any state for a mentally unstable person to have access to assault rifles or even be able to carry guns in churches, bars, or political rallies. It's a gun, it's not a third dick. You don't need to take it everywhere you go. I wouldn't feel safe with a hundred guns in my house considering how easy it is for any nut job to go out and by semi automatic weapons in a matter of minutes.

 

[RockFan89]

I think it's time to simplify this thread and get away from speculation. Taking away the issue of whatever or whoever the hell motivated this maniac if anything

Does anyone here actually think the current level of political vitriol coming from both political parties and the media is acceptable in a supposedly civilized country?

I agree with your sentiment, but given that this is your signature (in reference to Sarah Palin):

Loveless
Founder of the"No, You C**t" Party
Leading the campaign against hateful inbred fuckwits for President 2012

I can't really take you seriously.

So? The rhetoric in this country didn't suddenly become violent when Obama was elected president. Sure, it got worse, because of the collective victim complex the right-wing middle class suddenly developed, but believe me, the violent rhetoric didn't just begin then.

I agree, so my point was that it wasn't the rhetoric of the right that ignited all this political tension.

Er, actually no you can't, because movies, video games, and music are generally understood to be fictional mediums. This guy wasn't crazy enough to not understand the difference between fiction and reality. He saw what was going on in politics, and saw these politics applied to his reality. So he was pushed off the edge, and began attempting to assassinate government officials.

And everything that politicians and media heads say is also generally understood to be symbolic, not literal. Plus, the military actually uses video games to prepare soldiers for war, so there is clearly an element of realism in them that could encourage violence.

Okay, two points here.

A) Some of you are beginning to forget that that violent rhetoric coming from the left in the past 10 years wasn't being perpetuated by the left-wing media. Those are individual thoughts coming from stupid, potentially crazy people. What you have going on today are a group of people being influenced by their chosen media corporation to react violently to political ideology.

Wait a minute, almost all of your accusations are based off of actions of individuals and not the media. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh etc. have not called for the assassination of anyone. The rest of the points you make should thus be quotes from politicians and pundits and not random signs/quotes of individuals.

B) Left-wing "hate" comes from fucking war crimes, not passing a bill that would serve the interests of the middle class. There's a pretty big difference. People are being taught to react violently to something that would serve all of the middle class, but cost a little bit of money to the richest 1% of this country. Meanwhile, the left reacted violently to our government entering a country under false pretenses and murdering a metric fuck ton of people due to the greed of a few private companies.

That's just your point of view. The right could view Obama's policy as costing them jobs or hurting their health care options and quality. You're just characterizing Obama's policy in a liberal light.

Besides, Obama has just extended the practices of Bush with regards to Iraq and the Patriot Act. He added 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open and he has used a lot more predator drones than Bush. Yet for some reason no one on the left is painting Obama in the same way they did Bush.

I'm not going to even grace this with a response. You look at that paragraph and think about it for a little while, then you can retract it later.

I've looked at it and I still don't see your point. It's simple math. Let's say 1% of those who follow a certain ideology are extremist. If there are more people who follow one ideology than another, logically you would expect more fringe elements. So the reason why you may see more violent rhetoric on the right, disregarding any media bias, may be because there are just more conservatives than liberals.

Who said that the only people to ever use violent rhetoric are right-wing Americans. Nobody EVER said that.

I know you didn't say that, but you've clearly stated that the right is somehow worse than the left. I was pointing out how history has plenty of counterexamples

He invaded his own country's privacy laws with the Patriot Act, and entered a country under false pretenses, starting two illegal wars.

As I said before, Obama has not changed any of that but has actually extended it, yet no cries of fascism, war criminal, etc.

The only reason I'm making this argument is because the violent rhetoric coming from conservatives is less valid than the violent rhetoric coming from the liberals over issues like 9/11, the war, and privacy invasion issues.

In case I need to say it again, I don't think taxing people who aren't you to fund a health care system YOU benefit from warrants people threatening to kill our President.

However, if I had family in a country Bush decided he was going to bomb to high hell over the possibility that their government had bombs (turned out to not be true), and they died because of it, I'm pretty sure I'd be a little bit more pissed off than people who wrongfully believe their grandmothers are going to be sent to death panels.

No, the violent rhetoric on both sides is either wrong or okay. You're arguing that one side is better because you think their cause is better.

Again, nobody in the media is threatening to kill the president.