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

[Loveless]

I agree with your sentiment, but given that this is your signature I can't really take you seriously.

I asked a balanced, unpoliticised question which you actually agreed with but you disregard it in favour of taking sides again.
It's about time people stopped hiding behind which side they're taking and answer the damn question.

 

[RockFan89]

I asked a balanced, unpoliticised question which you actually agreed with but you disregard it in favour of taking sides again.
It's about time people stopped hiding behind which side they're taking and answer the damn question.

The reason I took issue with the question is because, based on your previous posts and the wording of the question, you clearly are someone who takes issue with the current political rhetoric. You said this in your first post in this thread:

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 act as if you're taking the higher ground, but then have a signature that calls Sarah Palin a name. You call her a "C**t" and a "hateful inbred fuckwit" but still want to bash the media for personal attacks. That was my issue. Don't complain about something when you're contributing to it.

To more directly answer your question then, I don't like the current political rhetoric and I do my best to not engage in it, but am I extremely upset by it? No. Do I think the government should get involved to stop it? No. Am I troubled or worried by it? No.

This is all part of living in a free country. People are to decide for themselves what positions they take and the type of people they look up to. I have no interest in listening to people who just make personal attacks against the other side instead of factual or logical arguments. I prefer listening to George Will over Rush Limbaugh, but that's me.

America has seen greater and more divisive rhetoric in its history, from its fight for Independence to the civil rights movement. So in the grand scheme of things, although I would like more respectful and thoughtful rhetoric, it is not an issue I am concerned about.

 

[Loveless]

I'm glad you came back.

The reason I took issue with the question is because, based on your previous posts and the wording of the question, you clearly are someone who takes issue with the current political rhetoric. You said this in your first post in this thread

Yep I absolutely do but that has little relevance to the question I asked. You can't ignore a perfectly reasoned question simply because you don't like where it comes from.

You act as if you're taking the higher ground, but then have a signature that calls Sarah Palin a name. You call her a "C**t" and a "hateful inbred fuckwit" but still want to bash the media for personal attacks. That was my issue. Don't complain about something when you're contributing to it.

Someone actually needs to take the higher ground and that's actually what I was trying to do when I asked that question. Again, you choose to focus on what side I'm on instead of what's actually being said. This is exactly the problem with the entire political compass.

To more directly answer your question then, I don't like the current political rhetoric and I do my best to not engage in it, but am I extremely upset by it? No. Do I think the government should get involved to stop it? No. Am I troubled or worried by it? No.

I asked "Do you think it's acceptable?" which you haven't answered.

This is all part of living in a free country.

OK I'm stopping you there. It might be part of living in the US but the behaviour of US politicians and your media would not be accepted anywhere else in the developed world.
As I've already said in this thread, being free is about more than being able to say whatever the hell you like, a major part of it is that you have the right to go about your job without people threatening you on a national level or placing gun sights on you. Infact I'd say that's a bigger priority that free speech.

People are to decide for themselves what positions they take and the type of people they look up to. I have no interest in listening to people who just make personal attacks against the other side instead of factual or logical arguments.

Great for you but the majority of people are bored by politics and are more interested in being entertained by the people making personal attacks.
At what point do those personal attacks cross the line into incitement? Because in my opinion they're already way past that point.

America has seen greater and more divisive rhetoric in its history, from its fight for Independence to the civil rights movement. So in the grand scheme of things, although I would like more respectful and thoughtful rhetoric, it is not an issue I am concerned about.

The fact that it's been happening throughout your history doesn't justify it. It was a problem then and it's a problem now but on a much larger scale.
I genuinely believe you're now moving in a period of irreparable division between left and right because formerly moderate democrats, faced with extreme right wing views, are getting sick of trying to make logical arguments when they're simply being shouted down.
I can probably count myself in that movement. I have become sick of arguing politics with people who know fuck all about it so instead, I took my cue from the right and I decided to make a simple visual statement. Maybe I should have placed crosshairs over her face? You've really no right to complain about it when you've no problem with far worse.

My point, getting away from my own personal anger right now, is that moderation needs to be found instead of this ever escalating incitement or you end up with both sides pointing their guns at each other and then all hell breaks loose.

 

[LSN80]

When the news first broke of this, I was the first to jump on the "blame Sarah Palin" background. What she did was far more then just words, it was actions. When she symbolically put a target on Giffords on the others who voted for the health care bill, I blamed her. When she said "take action", the first thing I thought was "how irresponsible." "How can someone make such a statement and not expect to take her literally?"

But the thing I realized is this. Sarah Palin didn't pull the trigger. She's no more responsible for Mr. Loughner's actions then you and me. The man is clearly delusional, and anti-government. He sprayed bullets into a crowd, not specifically aiming them at one person or another. Tragically, Ms. Giffords was caught in the crossfire. If someone takes things to the point where they take things so literally that they actually BELIEVED that Palin was encouraging them to commit murder, then they're mentally inept. Sarah Palin could have called him personally with some knowledge that this was going to happen and begged him not to act, and he would have done so anyway. We can always take the shortcut and blame others for the actions of people, but it's people who should be held responsible for their actions. End of story.

 

[RockFan89]

Someone actually needs to take the higher ground and that's actually what I was trying to do when I asked that question. Again, you choose to focus on what side I'm on instead of what's actually being said. This is exactly the problem with the entire political compass.

I absolutely focused on what you said. You are upset that the media has resorted to name calling but then you yourself call politicians names. That was my issue. I didn't focus on what side your on. If You were talking about Obama in that same way I'd still take issue with the hypocrisy.

I asked "Do you think it's acceptable?" which you haven't answered.

I don't think it is acceptable for a politicians because such positions should not be lowered to such levels. But if some random guy wants to use such rhetoric, I'm not concerned. There will always be some element of that.

OK I'm stopping you there. It might be part of living in the US but the behaviour of US politicians and your media would not be accepted anywhere else in the developed world.
As I've already said in this thread, being free is about more than being able to say whatever the hell you like, a major part of it is that you have the right to go about your job without people threatening you on a national level or placing gun sights on you. Infact I'd say that's a bigger priority that free speech.

The more I think about it, people have way overblown this issue. The map that Palin originally posted was nowhere near as incendiary as some are making it out to be. Politicians and the media are not calling for people's murders. Yes they may use over the top war or gun analogies, but no one has mistaken them for threats on people's lives. The rhetoric is not as heated as I think you think it is.

College students in Canada physically attacked Ann Coulter while she was giving a speech. There was a movie in America that actually portrayed the death of President Bush. There's video of people in one government in Asia (I think it was Japan) where politicians were physically fighting. To suggest that this only happens in conservative America is ridiculous.

The fact that it's been happening throughout your history doesn't justify it. It was a problem then and it's a problem now but on a much larger scale.
I genuinely believe you're now moving in a period of irreparable division between left and right because formerly moderate democrats, faced with extreme right wing views, are getting sick of trying to make logical arguments when they're simply being shouted down.

There are plenty of intellectual conservatives making logical cases, the media just doesn't cover them.

And the U.S. actually had a civil war and during the 50's and 60's we had assassinations and attempted assassinations of many people. To say that this era is worse and more divisive than any other is flat out wrong.

Maybe I should have placed crosshairs over her face? You've really no right to complain about it when you've no problem with far worse.

If you want to put a crosshairs over her, fine. And I won't take that as a threat on her life but just a symbol of your anger. My issue was not in the signature itself but with the fact that your calling for the media to stop doing something you yourself are engaged in. The hypocrisy is what bothers me.

 

[Loveless]

I absolutely focused on what you said. You are upset that the media has resorted to name calling but then you yourself call politicians names. That was my issue. I didn't focus on what side your on. If You were talking about Obama in that same way I'd still take issue with the hypocrisy.

I won't for one second deny my own hypocrisy though really I was trying to make a point with my signature. Hypocrite or not though, the question I asked was perfectly legitimate.

I don't think it is acceptable for a politicians because such positions should not be lowered to such levels. But if some random guy wants to use such rhetoric, I'm not concerned. There will always be some element of that.

If you take a position of influence, you've got to take the responsibility that goes with it. That doesn't apply solely to politicians, especially when I'm of the opinion that the media holds a bigger influence. Same rules for everyone

The more I think about it, people have way overblown this issue. The map that Palin originally posted was nowhere near as incendiary as some are making it out to be. Politicians and the media are not calling for people's murders. Yes they may use over the top war or gun analogies, but no one has mistaken them for threats on people's lives. The rhetoric is not as heated as I think you think it is.

You've gone back to this specific case when I was talking in general terms. Whether the media is related to this case or not, if they continue down the current path it will eventually lead to violence. It is inevitable but certain groups will never believe that until the shooter says "Hey, I shot this person because the TV told me to"

There are plenty of intellectual conservatives making logical cases, the media just doesn't cover them.

Then you should be pissed because they're being overshadowed by the morons.

And the U.S. actually had a civil war and during the 50's and 60's we had assassinations and attempted assassinations of many people. To say that this era is worse and more divisive than any other is flat out wrong.

Please quote where I said this era is worse.
What I said is you're moving towards breakdown. The right are getting more angry and the left are getting increasingly pissed off trying to have reasoned arguments with them. That is one of the points I'm making with my signature, I'm actually a very reasonable guy but I'm approaching the point where I'm sick of being reasonable and am ready to start throwing mud.

If you want to put a crosshairs over her, fine. And I won't take that as a threat on her life but just a symbol of your anger. My issue was not in the signature itself but with the fact that your calling for the media to stop doing something you yourself are engaged in. The hypocrisy is what bothers me.

Yep already covered my hypocrisy.