>> Lisser wrote: If Palin becomes President, I am moving to Germany to live with Barb.<<
.
I know you called it first, but if Barb's taking in refugees, I'll be there right beside you.
magicalfreddiemercury
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
It's possible, perhaps even probable, that the right leads the left when it comes to violent political speech and imagery. It's difficult to tell, because that notion is one of those things that the left now treats like some kind of inalienable first principle that requires little in the way of argument, and clearly doesn't require taking a good hard look in the mirror either. The vandalism of political offices is probably as old as political office, and it was certainly a force during the Bush years as waves of attacks against Republican offices were reported and fretted over. Now, apparently, it's all Sarah Palin's fault. Embarrassingly facile. When Bush was heckled by the Democratic House in his State of the Union address that was believed by the left to be justified, righteous indignation. Well, newsflash, the right and the libertarians (who make up a not insignificant section of a comparatively measured and reasoned segment of the Tea Party people) genuinely believe they are justified and righteous in their indignance as well.
It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being.
When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH.
The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself.
It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being.
When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH.
The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself.
YourValentine
I think the emigration bit was just a joke, GFF :-) Both Lisser and MagicalFF know that Germany is not a paradise. After all, fuel costs over 7$ here.
About the political rhetoric I think that it did not happen before President Obama that a member of congress shouted "liar" during a speech of the President. Of course the majority of Republicans do not resort to lying and inciting hatred but unfortunately the minority makes all the noise and gets all the media attention.Personallly, I think it is asked a lot from the so-called "level-headed" to take all these insults and violence but still keep the discourse civil. It is hard to keep up civility when you are shouted down all the time.
Funny how the election of President Obama was celebrated by the media as the biggest achievemnet in the USA because a black man was elected in a democratic process but now nobody touches the subject of the underlying racism in the discourse of these tea partiers and their followers. While I never understood the hype about Obama who was worshipped like a messiah at the beginning I now do not understand the hatred and total lack of respect against a President who surprisingly cannot walk the water. When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child.
About the political rhetoric I think that it did not happen before President Obama that a member of congress shouted "liar" during a speech of the President. Of course the majority of Republicans do not resort to lying and inciting hatred but unfortunately the minority makes all the noise and gets all the media attention.Personallly, I think it is asked a lot from the so-called "level-headed" to take all these insults and violence but still keep the discourse civil. It is hard to keep up civility when you are shouted down all the time.
Funny how the election of President Obama was celebrated by the media as the biggest achievemnet in the USA because a black man was elected in a democratic process but now nobody touches the subject of the underlying racism in the discourse of these tea partiers and their followers. While I never understood the hype about Obama who was worshipped like a messiah at the beginning I now do not understand the hatred and total lack of respect against a President who surprisingly cannot walk the water. When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>>YourValentine wrote: When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child. <<<
.
And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is.
.
While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting.
.
I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house.
.
And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is.
.
While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting.
.
I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house.
thomasquinn 32989
GratefulFan wrote: It's possible, perhaps even probable, that the right leads the left when it comes to violent political speech and imagery. It's difficult to tell, because that notion is one of those things that the left now treats like some kind of inalienable first principle that requires little in the way of argument, and clearly doesn't require taking a good hard look in the mirror either. The vandalism of political offices is probably as old as political office, and it was certainly a force during the Bush years as waves of attacks against Republican offices were reported and fretted over. Now, apparently, it's all Sarah Palin's fault. Embarrassingly facile. When Bush was heckled by the Democratic House in his State of the Union address that was believed by the left to be justified, righteous indignation. Well, newsflash, the right and the libertarians (who make up a not insignificant section of a comparatively measured and reasoned segment of the Tea Party people) genuinely believe they are justified and righteous in their indignance as well.
It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being.
When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH.
The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself.
======
You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes.
It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being.
When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH.
The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself.
======
You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes.
The Real Wizard
ThomasQuinn wrote:
"You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes."
================================================
So then the question is... why are progressive, forward-thinking people more complacent than narrow-minded, backward-thinking people?
"You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes."
================================================
So then the question is... why are progressive, forward-thinking people more complacent than narrow-minded, backward-thinking people?
thomasquinn 32989
Could you specify what you mean when you say "complacent"?
magicalfreddiemercury
>>>Sir GH wrote: So then the question is... why are progressive, forward-thinking people more complacent than narrow-minded, backward-thinking people? "<<<
.
I'll take a stab at this - I'd say the backward-thinking people are more frightened that their control may be taken away and so they fight harder and dirtier. The progressive, forward-thinking people want harmony and believe working in a less aggressive manner will win logic from the other side. It's a kind of "can't we all just get along" way of thinking. That's not to say progressives are a bunch of peaceful free-loving people, because we all know there are nuts at all levels and on all sides. The overall thought process, however, is one of non-aggression. Which often has the side effect of pissing off the base.
.
I'll take a stab at this - I'd say the backward-thinking people are more frightened that their control may be taken away and so they fight harder and dirtier. The progressive, forward-thinking people want harmony and believe working in a less aggressive manner will win logic from the other side. It's a kind of "can't we all just get along" way of thinking. That's not to say progressives are a bunch of peaceful free-loving people, because we all know there are nuts at all levels and on all sides. The overall thought process, however, is one of non-aggression. Which often has the side effect of pissing off the base.
YourValentine
I believe that fanatics on each side are the ones who are easily incited to hatred. Whenever people are driven by instincts and emotions rather than reason they are prone to hatred and blind rage. People are not necessarily "good" by nature imo. It comes much more natural to give in to anger, jealousy, fear, xenophobia and racism than to respect and honour the rights, life and opinion of other people in the same way as our own rights, life and opinion. Only education and the rule of law can help to advance a society. That is why advanced societies do not have the death penalty but instead they have social security, health care and access to education for all.. Education shows us that we are far from perfect and the whole society is needed to obtain justice and social security for everybody.
In the case of Sarah Palin - she is one of those who agitate the fear and rage in other people rather than working honestly on the well-being of her country. The fact that she calls herself a Christian and a patriot is only an additional insult for Christians and patriots who do not hate other people and who are given a bad name by her. She stands in a line with other agitators in the past who have caused as much pain and suffering as the mob who was incited by them and the Republican party should get rid of her. The only good thing she said in her videotaped drivel is that people are responsible for what they do. Too bad she does not apply this to herself.
In the case of Sarah Palin - she is one of those who agitate the fear and rage in other people rather than working honestly on the well-being of her country. The fact that she calls herself a Christian and a patriot is only an additional insult for Christians and patriots who do not hate other people and who are given a bad name by her. She stands in a line with other agitators in the past who have caused as much pain and suffering as the mob who was incited by them and the Republican party should get rid of her. The only good thing she said in her videotaped drivel is that people are responsible for what they do. Too bad she does not apply this to herself.
*goodco*
No one says it better (the first 8 minutes)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-18-2011/petty-woman
Remember...............I can attack you (it's not attacking)....but do not attack me, because then it's attacking.
Best obvious, unused word during the Stewart bit concerning the half governor.......................hypocrite.
nuff said
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-18-2011/petty-woman
Remember...............I can attack you (it's not attacking)....but do not attack me, because then it's attacking.
Best obvious, unused word during the Stewart bit concerning the half governor.......................hypocrite.
nuff said
GratefulFan
ThomasQuinn wrote:
You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes.
========================================
I'm happy to take your word for that. I was referring to the US. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes.
========================================
I'm happy to take your word for that. I was referring to the US. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
GratefulFan
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>YourValentine wrote: When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child. <<<
.
And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is.
.
While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting.
.
I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house.
=========================
Google 'Bush' and 'anti-Christ'. Perhaps there is simply some constant that represents people willing to indulge that kind of thing - as believers or tacticians - when the political winds are not blowing their way. Perhaps that figure is about 25% of any given populist movement. As that kind of polling doesn't seem to have been done in the Bush days it may be hard to know. We live in a time when we are assaulted by endless information, and decontextualized facts jammed into pet theories are a perpetual hazard.
I do think that serious, impartial study might reveal that the right generally does invoke and glamourize the language of force to defend rights and freedoms and achieve political ends more than the left, but the gaping divide people would like to believe is there simply doesn't exist. It does not exist. There have been endless examples of violent rhetoric and hate speech from the left end of the political spectrum pinging around the right wing blogosphere and the right wing media for a couple of weeks now. They are no less distasteful or sobering that the worst of the examples from the right. That the left has any kind of significant moral high ground on that front is purely an illusion. 'You lie!' was undeniably an unacceptable breach of respect and decorum. But so much more so than the Democrat who put on the Congressional Record the 'fact' that George Bush was sending troops to die in the war 'for his personal amusement'? I wouldn't think so.
I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 tonight and he was talking to Steven Cohen who is under fire (see how common the language of war is in political discussion? You can barely avoid it if you try) for remarks likening GOP tactics to those of the Nazis. Despite being given a chance to soften his language, he refused. In fact he chose to dig even deeper into the comparison through repeated references to Goebbels throughout the segment. When asked to defend his position he talked of knowing the real character of Tea Partiers from walking amongst them and reading their hateful signs. A particularly offensive one related Obama to Hitler, he said. While in the same breath, the very same breath, calling the GOP Nazis and claiming the high ground. Anderson is usually good at keeping cool, but his disbelief at what was coming out of this man's mouth was impossible to hide, and he eventually stopped trying. The segment ended in a manner that could almost be described as surreal.
Whether it's an inherent quality of the left, or a quality of whoever holds the current political power, the left do not see themselves clearly, or at least as others see them. I saw a Quinnipiac poll a few days ago that had a question buried about whether the left or the right was more responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and the political climate. Republicans, Democrats and Independents were asked and overall the answer was 'Democrats' by 36 to 32 percent (or something close to that). The real story for me though was in the responses of the main parties relative to the Independents. If just the Independents were considered the findings were once again close at about 36 to 32, but reversed with Conservatives held slightly more accountable for the tone than Liberals. While only a small number of Conservative and Liberals saw their own parties as the main culprits (8 and 9 percent), 57 percent of Conservatives blamed Liberals and a whopping 71 percent of Liberals blamed Conservatives. Conservatives were much more likely then to say 'I don't know' and closer in perception to the Independents who are presumably far less idealogically motivated. It's just one poll, and extrapolating too much from it would't be wise but it certainly supports what I perceive anecdotally.
Saying that Tea Partiers called themselves 'teabaggers' at the beginning is not a defence, if that's the right word. They did so naively. People who use that tern now are guilty of casually flinging about a slightly homophobic, degrading sexual slur for the purpose of dehumanizing political opponents. Those opponents are no better, generally, but then again they're not really pretending to be. Saying that Obama 'just might have been' talking to both sides is not enough. Of course he was talking to both sides. It couldn't have been clearer. Saying that the shooting 'might not have had anything to do with' Sarah Palin and Tea Party rhetoric is not enough. There is simply no evidence of it. None. The potential of heated rhetoric to incite violence in present day America is something that should be studied, so the problem is not with the question, it's with the opportunistic use of it a political night stick in the middle of a tragedy. What did you think Sarah Palin was going to do. Sit there and take it? If so, that was a completely unreasonable expectation.
I was watching some Julian Assange clips tonight and thinking about his love life laid bare as I posted in another thread. I was thinking about how it revealed him to be at least in part a flawed, vulnerable and ordinary man, and how it was ironic that in a sense that is what he is doing to so many other people. Pulling back the curtain to reveal ordinary flawed people in positions of great power in various states of being afraid of losing it. Every time Sarah Palin talks she underscores how essentially unremarkable she is, how unprepared she is for anything great. Just like almost everybody else. The end of all this almost has to be a big bloody pile of exhausted people left staring at each other, finally having clawed off enough of the caricature they constructed to recognize themselves in the stunningly ordinary people looking back.
.
And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is.
.
While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting.
.
I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house.
=========================
Google 'Bush' and 'anti-Christ'. Perhaps there is simply some constant that represents people willing to indulge that kind of thing - as believers or tacticians - when the political winds are not blowing their way. Perhaps that figure is about 25% of any given populist movement. As that kind of polling doesn't seem to have been done in the Bush days it may be hard to know. We live in a time when we are assaulted by endless information, and decontextualized facts jammed into pet theories are a perpetual hazard.
I do think that serious, impartial study might reveal that the right generally does invoke and glamourize the language of force to defend rights and freedoms and achieve political ends more than the left, but the gaping divide people would like to believe is there simply doesn't exist. It does not exist. There have been endless examples of violent rhetoric and hate speech from the left end of the political spectrum pinging around the right wing blogosphere and the right wing media for a couple of weeks now. They are no less distasteful or sobering that the worst of the examples from the right. That the left has any kind of significant moral high ground on that front is purely an illusion. 'You lie!' was undeniably an unacceptable breach of respect and decorum. But so much more so than the Democrat who put on the Congressional Record the 'fact' that George Bush was sending troops to die in the war 'for his personal amusement'? I wouldn't think so.
I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 tonight and he was talking to Steven Cohen who is under fire (see how common the language of war is in political discussion? You can barely avoid it if you try) for remarks likening GOP tactics to those of the Nazis. Despite being given a chance to soften his language, he refused. In fact he chose to dig even deeper into the comparison through repeated references to Goebbels throughout the segment. When asked to defend his position he talked of knowing the real character of Tea Partiers from walking amongst them and reading their hateful signs. A particularly offensive one related Obama to Hitler, he said. While in the same breath, the very same breath, calling the GOP Nazis and claiming the high ground. Anderson is usually good at keeping cool, but his disbelief at what was coming out of this man's mouth was impossible to hide, and he eventually stopped trying. The segment ended in a manner that could almost be described as surreal.
Whether it's an inherent quality of the left, or a quality of whoever holds the current political power, the left do not see themselves clearly, or at least as others see them. I saw a Quinnipiac poll a few days ago that had a question buried about whether the left or the right was more responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and the political climate. Republicans, Democrats and Independents were asked and overall the answer was 'Democrats' by 36 to 32 percent (or something close to that). The real story for me though was in the responses of the main parties relative to the Independents. If just the Independents were considered the findings were once again close at about 36 to 32, but reversed with Conservatives held slightly more accountable for the tone than Liberals. While only a small number of Conservative and Liberals saw their own parties as the main culprits (8 and 9 percent), 57 percent of Conservatives blamed Liberals and a whopping 71 percent of Liberals blamed Conservatives. Conservatives were much more likely then to say 'I don't know' and closer in perception to the Independents who are presumably far less idealogically motivated. It's just one poll, and extrapolating too much from it would't be wise but it certainly supports what I perceive anecdotally.
Saying that Tea Partiers called themselves 'teabaggers' at the beginning is not a defence, if that's the right word. They did so naively. People who use that tern now are guilty of casually flinging about a slightly homophobic, degrading sexual slur for the purpose of dehumanizing political opponents. Those opponents are no better, generally, but then again they're not really pretending to be. Saying that Obama 'just might have been' talking to both sides is not enough. Of course he was talking to both sides. It couldn't have been clearer. Saying that the shooting 'might not have had anything to do with' Sarah Palin and Tea Party rhetoric is not enough. There is simply no evidence of it. None. The potential of heated rhetoric to incite violence in present day America is something that should be studied, so the problem is not with the question, it's with the opportunistic use of it a political night stick in the middle of a tragedy. What did you think Sarah Palin was going to do. Sit there and take it? If so, that was a completely unreasonable expectation.
I was watching some Julian Assange clips tonight and thinking about his love life laid bare as I posted in another thread. I was thinking about how it revealed him to be at least in part a flawed, vulnerable and ordinary man, and how it was ironic that in a sense that is what he is doing to so many other people. Pulling back the curtain to reveal ordinary flawed people in positions of great power in various states of being afraid of losing it. Every time Sarah Palin talks she underscores how essentially unremarkable she is, how unprepared she is for anything great. Just like almost everybody else. The end of all this almost has to be a big bloody pile of exhausted people left staring at each other, finally having clawed off enough of the caricature they constructed to recognize themselves in the stunningly ordinary people looking back.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>> GratefulFan wrote: 'You lie!' was undeniably an unacceptable breach of respect and decorum. But so much more so than the Democrat who put on the Congressional Record the 'fact' that George Bush was sending troops to die in the war 'for his personal amusement'? I wouldn't think so. <<<
================
When speaking about going into Iraq and taking out Saddam, Bush himself said the words, “after all, he’s the man who tried to kill my dad.” If that doesn’t sound like a man who brought a country to war for his own purpose, I don’t know what does. Added to that is the insult to common sense when he said – repeatedly at news conferences and at least once to a world leader (Germany’s chancellor Gerhard Schroder) – that god told him to go into Iraq. This was a delusional man with his own agenda. That agenda destroyed thousands upon thousands of lives, cost America – financially – in ways from which we may never recover, and tarnished America’s name even among her allies. Anti-christ? That’s a ridiculous assessment whether coming from the left or the right. He was simply one of the worst American presidents because his policy was tied to his personal needs rather than to those of his country or the world.
.
There may not be a connection between the shooting in Tucson and Palin’s ‘reload’ comment and graphic. I’ll say it again – there may not be a connection. But, according to her, there is a connection between the shooting and the shooter’s “left-leaning ideals”. She’s the victim, she says, because she was falsely accused. And yet she will falsely accuse in her defense. That about sums it up.
.
The violent, anti-choice, anti-poor, anti-gay, ultra-christian rhetoric of the ultra and not-so ultra right divides this country in ways that may be impossible to overcome. And their obsession with guns is rather unsettling. They so want to ensure their gun rights that one senator has gone so far as to draft a bill that would make it illegal – and punishable by a million dollar fine – for a pediatrician to ask parents if they have guns in the home. The fear is that pediatricians will put the names of parents who own guns on some government list. According to this republican senator, that (made-up) possibility is an invasion of the parents’ privacy. So if the government is told when/if parents own guns, that’s an invasion of personal privacy, but it is not an invasion of personal privacy when the government gets between a doctor and a woman’s uterus.
.
Hypocrisy exists on both sides. I’ve said that before in my posts. However, I see a more unifying and hopeful view of this country from the left than from the right. Their elitist, anti-individual view is what has all but brought this country to its knees. The violence-laced speech escalated when Obama succeeded in passing new healthcare laws. They hate those laws. If not because it helps those in need, then because it came from this president. They want him to fail and said so at the onset. They lie continuously to make their view sound more grounded, more logical. They are focused on making President Obama a one-term president. They’re focused on that, not on the economy, on real healthcare, or any other issue this country desperately needs them to focus on, but on making this president fail… all the while refusing to acknowledge that if the American president fails, the country fails. IMO, that alone is enough to call the right out for their hateful speech – which is without question laced with more fury and pure hate than the overall message from the left.
.
Irresponsible people who say irresponsible things are everywhere and there’s enough blame to touch everyone. Mostly, however, it will land on those who rile others in a way that promotes, seems to encourage, and then denies responsibility for violence.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40099720#40099720
================
When speaking about going into Iraq and taking out Saddam, Bush himself said the words, “after all, he’s the man who tried to kill my dad.” If that doesn’t sound like a man who brought a country to war for his own purpose, I don’t know what does. Added to that is the insult to common sense when he said – repeatedly at news conferences and at least once to a world leader (Germany’s chancellor Gerhard Schroder) – that god told him to go into Iraq. This was a delusional man with his own agenda. That agenda destroyed thousands upon thousands of lives, cost America – financially – in ways from which we may never recover, and tarnished America’s name even among her allies. Anti-christ? That’s a ridiculous assessment whether coming from the left or the right. He was simply one of the worst American presidents because his policy was tied to his personal needs rather than to those of his country or the world.
.
There may not be a connection between the shooting in Tucson and Palin’s ‘reload’ comment and graphic. I’ll say it again – there may not be a connection. But, according to her, there is a connection between the shooting and the shooter’s “left-leaning ideals”. She’s the victim, she says, because she was falsely accused. And yet she will falsely accuse in her defense. That about sums it up.
.
The violent, anti-choice, anti-poor, anti-gay, ultra-christian rhetoric of the ultra and not-so ultra right divides this country in ways that may be impossible to overcome. And their obsession with guns is rather unsettling. They so want to ensure their gun rights that one senator has gone so far as to draft a bill that would make it illegal – and punishable by a million dollar fine – for a pediatrician to ask parents if they have guns in the home. The fear is that pediatricians will put the names of parents who own guns on some government list. According to this republican senator, that (made-up) possibility is an invasion of the parents’ privacy. So if the government is told when/if parents own guns, that’s an invasion of personal privacy, but it is not an invasion of personal privacy when the government gets between a doctor and a woman’s uterus.
.
Hypocrisy exists on both sides. I’ve said that before in my posts. However, I see a more unifying and hopeful view of this country from the left than from the right. Their elitist, anti-individual view is what has all but brought this country to its knees. The violence-laced speech escalated when Obama succeeded in passing new healthcare laws. They hate those laws. If not because it helps those in need, then because it came from this president. They want him to fail and said so at the onset. They lie continuously to make their view sound more grounded, more logical. They are focused on making President Obama a one-term president. They’re focused on that, not on the economy, on real healthcare, or any other issue this country desperately needs them to focus on, but on making this president fail… all the while refusing to acknowledge that if the American president fails, the country fails. IMO, that alone is enough to call the right out for their hateful speech – which is without question laced with more fury and pure hate than the overall message from the left.
.
Irresponsible people who say irresponsible things are everywhere and there’s enough blame to touch everyone. Mostly, however, it will land on those who rile others in a way that promotes, seems to encourage, and then denies responsibility for violence.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40099720#40099720
YourValentine
This video is really scary. It also tells me that in the USA the freedom of speech is much less limited that in my country. Here the woman would commit a crime against the constitution by publicly suggesting that she is up to kill people if the outcome of the election does not suit her. No member of parliament - not even a Neonazi - would dare to employ her. I also think that she completely misunderstands the meaning of the second amendment.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>>>YourValentine wrote: No member of parliament - not even a Neonazi - would dare to employ her. <<<<
============
.
For the record, she's no longer chief of staff. However, she was not let go. Instead, she stepped down, prompting a statement of 'regret' from West that she wouldn't be part of his team. Scary indeed.
.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/11/1920774/police-track-caller-of-threat.html
============
.
For the record, she's no longer chief of staff. However, she was not let go. Instead, she stepped down, prompting a statement of 'regret' from West that she wouldn't be part of his team. Scary indeed.
.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/11/1920774/police-track-caller-of-threat.html