Nobody should realistically blame Sarah Palin for directly causing the incident. Sarah Palin did not pull the trigger; Sarah Palin did not tell the nutbag to pull the trigger; Sarah Palin did not buy the gun.
However, there’s a difference between cause and context, and that’s what those of us trying to talk about Palin’s comments want to discuss. Saying “he was just a nutbag” isn’t sufficient. There are lots of nutbags who do violent things, but Jared Loughner didn’t decide to kill people because he was in a crazy cult (like Squeaky Fromme was) or because he was obsessed with a Hollywood star (like John Hinckley was). Jared Loughner, like most of the major violent newsmaking incidents of the past few years, decided to go kill people because he felt, like most paranoids do (and he’s pretty obviously paranoid) that Somebody Was Out To Get Him.
But most paranoids don’t go out killing people; the tinfoil hats and hoarding is usually enough to get them by. So what happened with Jared Loughner? The same thing that happened with Andrew Stack when he flew his plane into an IRS building, or Byron Williams when he decided he had to go shoot up the Tides Federation and the ACLU, or James von Brunn when he shot up the Holocaust Museum, or Jim Adkisson when he decided to shoot up a Unitarian Church, or Richard Poplawski when he shot up a bunch of cops, or Nidal Hasan when he shot up Fort Hood.
I threw that last one in there in purpose, because back when Nidal Hasan – somebody who was obviously mentally disturbed – committed his crime, there were no shortage of people who were willing to say that radical Islam influenced his actions even if he was a nutbag. Now, this is not to say that Sarah Palin is equivalent to Osama Bin Laden; of course she isn’t. Bin Laden is a terrorist; Palin is just a generally terrible human being.
But she, and more importantly the modern conservative movement, uses the violent rhetoric of uprise and uses it routinely. This cannot be denied because it is plainly obvious on its face. “Don’t retreat, reload” did not become her catchphrase for nothing. Sharron Angle talking about how if conservatives lose at the polls they should consider resorting to “Second Amendment remedies.” Carrying signs that say things like “we came unarmed – this time,” or alternately just bringing a gun right to a political event period1. Glenn Beck talking for hours at a time about how the government is being put to evil, tyrannical ends, and how it’s important for Americans to “rise up” or “not take it any more” or “[insert intentionally nonspecific assertion of brave action here]”.
This is not to say that Jared Loughner is conservative; most likely he is just too crazy and fringe to really be anything, much like Stack or or even Williams.2 But he, like the others, was receiving a steady diet of rhetoric that was violent, at times even slightly eliminationist.
As for Poplawski and van Brunn, they were white supremacists, which – historical connotations aside – doesn’t really have that much to do with modern conservatism, ideologically speaking.3 But over the last few years, movement conservatism has been visibly borrowing rhetoric from the paranoid camp of white supremacism. Not racist stuff, let’s be clear; paranoid stuff.
Government as inherent tyranny; liberal institutions as ground for secret conspiracies; the almost certainly incipient charge of the black helicopters. And, of course, the desperate labeling of a health care bill so blandly middle-of-the-road and centrist it was probably drafted with mayonnaise rather than ink as “a government takeover of healthcare” and “death panels” and etc. etc. etc. If you’re a paranoid, you already think that THEY are out to GET YOU. If you’re told, over and over again, that THEY is “this specific bunch of people,” sometimes it starts to sink in. That paranoid rhetoric has been chanted, like a mantra, by the modern conservative movement. It’s not the cause for Jared Loughner’s actions; it’s the context.
I get that conservatives don’t want to talk about context right now. After all, it’s rather uncomfortable when this sort of thing is so obvious on its face – just as it was obvious that when Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood that, although he was a nutbag and that was most of the reason he went on a rampage, being exposed to the worst kind of violent Islamic rhetoric didn’t help.
And Palin knows it, which is the sad thing: she knows exactly what she did and why. I mean for crissake Sarah Palin’s staff is reduced to pretending that the gun sights on that map were surveyor’s symbols, that’s how desperate they are to try and find any excuse at all for their tone now that it’s possibly gone south on them and people are saying “hey, maybe this isn’t appropriate,” and incidentally when Team Palin says things like that I don’t know why their supporters don’t realize that they’re really saying “you are idiots for giving us money and moral support, you really are, that’s what we think of you,” but that is neither here nor there.
But context matters. Why things like this happened, and have happened before, and will continue to happen in the future – these things matter, because now there is a respected federal judge and a man who shoved his wife down and took her bullet and a nine-year-old girl who are dead. Dismissing this as the act of one nutbag, as random chance, equivalent to a strike of lightning? Moral cowardice, plain and simple.
- In a show of maturity that’s on par with walking around with your cock hanging out of your pants. [↩]
- Adkisson, I think, can safely be described as conservative. [↩]
- This is not to say that there is not overlap. There is. Pretending otherwise is just bullshit. But conservatism, in and of itself, does not have anything really tangibly in common with white supremacism. [↩]
Related Articles
96 users responded in this post
Sadly, the rhetoric-spewing talking heads who have made an industry out of peddling paranoia are totally comfortable with moral cowardice, to the point where they will continue to claim it is an act of great courage. If Beck et al aren’t back on their rage-horses yelling their usual garbage within a week, I’ll be surprised; if they wait a whole month before going right back to business as usual, I’ll be astonished.
An excellent post, and one that I concur with, for the most part. Though I’d personally have left out the “slightly” in “slightly eliminationist”. Hell, Glenn Beck describes liberals as a disease–a cancer, even–to be cured, lest we poison his nation. Even the idea of “Taking Our Country Back” includes in the very wording the idea that it’s their country, never mine, and that I have somehow stolen it from them through my liberal wiles. GOD, I’m clever.
MGK, I applaud you for not going completely off on this. The culture of hate is directly responsible, and should be punished somehow.
Hell, I heard Glenn Beck saying that all abortions should be performed with baseball bats.
That should be illegal, giving violent idiots ideas.
It all makes me sick, and I cannot focus on it for more than five minutes at a time, but something needs to be done.
As an antidote, I have a freakish rap video featuring Squirrel Girl:
http://sketchcardsaloon.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/squirrel-girl-music-video/
Fighting crazy with crazy, it’s the only way I know.
Hey MGK, I was wondering if you can clarify something: are you saying here that conservatism in and of itself as a political view/ideology/whatever is in part responsible (or that it lends itself to such actions in a way liberalism does not), or only the major figures of said movement/ideology who espouse the kind of paranoia and what have you you described in your post?
I’m passing this link around. This may be one of the best things you’ve written.
Certainly not. You only need look at history for plenty of examples of violent leftist rhetoric. That having been said, it isn’t history o’clock right now; it’s the present, and in the present, violent rhetoric is being mainstreamed by the right.
All that I can say is I agree with everything that was said (and I’m a republican). Beck is crazy and just talks nonsense, and not just about the democrats but republicans too.
I’m not condoning anything Palin or Beck or anyone has said.
But here’s my problem. If a nutbag goes on a spree and the media blames violent movies or video games or comic books, most of us here are going to dismiss it, and say that individual actions can’t be blamed on these media. When states or the federal government try to restrict access to games or whatever, we howl that it’s censorship, that there’s no evidence of any kind of causal link, etc. We reject any notion that those media hold any kind of responsibility when someone goes off the deep end.
So, how, exactly, is blaming the “context” of admittedly extreme and assinine conservative comments and different than blaming the “context” of Grand Theft Auto or Tales from The Crypt? Isn’t it just essentially the same argument we reject when applied to media we approve of?
Well, for one thing it’s basically the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Conservative media are talking about real people right now and in talking like there’s actually problems people would be justified in responding with violence.
Thank you for putting this in context.
Video games, television and movies are usually intended to be consumed as fiction, even in more realistic forms of each genre. Opinion shows are not, even if someone was to argue that many opinion shows traffic in fiction more than informed opinion. Someone who is mentally disturbed may have trouble telling reality from fiction when they play a video game, but many people who are paranoid do not suffer from that level of mental instability. They can play a game and perfectly understand it’s not real when they shoot an enemy soldier in the head, but be convinced that a talking head is speaking directly to them, when that talking head says the government is taking over their lives.
While I abhor the current political climate and agree that the right is certainly affecting a more violent message right now, I am disinclined to fix blame, however indirectly, on anybody but the person who made the conscious decision to commit this mayhem. Frankly, it smells of the religious right claiming that the U.S.’s permissive, godless culture and increasing tolerance of homosexuals made the Muslim world hate us so much that 9/11 happened.
Again, I don’t like the atmosphere of political discourse these days,and am willing to put more of the onus on the Right, but we should stop short of blaming them for the acts of one dipshit.
For what it’s worth, one of Loughner’s major buttons seemed to be language.
Not any particular language, like English, but the actual process of turning ideas into words and how that affects reality.
Or at least that’s the impression I’ve gotten from the glimpses I’ve gotten from his myspace page and the youtube stuff. It’s hard to tell, because he’s clearly not sane.
Oh, could we PLEASE stop calling the shooter a “nutbag”? I am NOT defending his actions– but for the many millions of mentally ill people who manage (as you also derisively point out, with tin foil, etc.) against really difficult circumstances NOT to act out– can we not give these names to them?? Can you not see it is the same kind of language you are railing against?? PLEASE. I am a therapist, and I dare ANYONE to try on a serious mental illness for even an hour and then feel what being called a “nutbag”–even indirectly–feels like. Thank you.
Calling the shooter a nut is an attempt at minimizing what is really happening. From what I’ve seen his was a perfectly coherent political view, not the ranting of a nut. It just happens to be a really fringe view. The problem is that the liberal class isn’t ready to see that they have become impotent and that there is a real, growing proto-fascist movement in America. This is early Weimar republic. Without drastic changes, if Obama’s administration remains unable to do any sort of real reform and the economy continues to tank (or even recovers, but only for the top 10%), you’re looking at a powder keg ready to explode.
Fox News is the American Radio Rwanda.
There’s not much functional difference between the cultural acceptance of violence perpetuated through video games and movies and the cultural acceptance of violence perpetuated through things like Palin’s map. Neither of them urge direct action, and in most cases, the damaged person who acts violently is inspired by the cultural climate that the movie/game/speech helps perpetuate, not because they’re trying to get approval from the makers of GTA or The Matrix. Which is why we need to be very careful about actually casting blame on Palin, et al.
I think that it is extremely likely that Loughner had no affinity for Palin or Sharron Angle or Glenn Beck or anyone else who identifies as a Tea Party conservative — based on the little we know about him, I suspect that he identified with no larger group at all, and was the sort of nihilistic believer in his own superiority who wants to impress people with how smart he is (read the WSJ article about his previous encounter with Giffords for more). So I don’t think it’s likely he saw the target map and thought, “That’s a good idea, I should shoot her.” I think it’s much more likely that because there’s now an atmosphere in which violently striking out against a politician is an idea that gets more play in the US than in the past, it’s more readily accessible to a fringe psychotic. The idea’s out there, and who knows who’s going to pick it up?
But the same’s true of video games and movies. If you’ve read Dave Cullen’s book on Columbine, you may be aware that Harris and Klebold referred to their shooting as “NBK”, after Natural Born Killers, or that they adored the coolness of the scene in The Matrix where Neo frees Morpheus by walking in, guns blazing, to the building, and they strove to emulate it. The movies aren’t to blame, but they did contribute to the culture of violence. There really isn’t much functional difference between that and Palin’s rhetoric.
(The difference, of course, is one of intent — the Wachowskis and Oliver Stone were trying to make art and/or entertainment, while Palin was trying to score cheap political and fundraising points. I value art more than I value cheap political and fundraising goals, as I’m sure most of y’all do. But they act in the same manner, normalizing violence in the same culture that sees people act violently.)
@Dan — Giffords opponent, who if not a bonafide teabagger certainly was willing to exploit their movement, in the last election ran ads showing him in camo carrying an M-16 & bragging about his gun collection. It’s not an unreasonable assumption that his campaign fuels Loughner’s mental illness.
BTW, while I empathize with his parents, geeze, where were they? He was living with them, they shoulda had him committed.
One specific difference between Video Games and Political Rhetoric:
Few video games/violent movies/violent rap lyrics give specific targets [maybe “the police”, or “random people”, or “terrorists”, etc]
However, the politicians gave very specific targets. It wasn’t just saying that violence was ok, but also that the Democrats/Liberals/Government were the enemy/threat.
Video games and movies, etc … may imply that violence okay. They don’t tell you there is an imminent threat which reinforces your paranoid delusions.
I have to agree Walter. There’s a huge difference between normalising violence in general and normalising violence against specific, REAL people. And Palin and co. are doing the latter.
In addition, they are normalizing violence against real people in a very specific context, that of revolting against a regime that is destroying America. The implication that you would be a hero just like the ones you read about in the history books is pretty close to the surface.
Can you think of any examples of Democratic/Liberal lunatics who’ve gone on shooting sprees?
I can’t.
But it’s a serious question, because if the majority of lunatic shooters, bombers, poison gas attackers et al are coming from a politically conservative background… that has bearing.
Wondering if you can think of any from the opposite end of the spectrum.
Actually, William Mckinley was assassinated by a would-be anarchist named Leon Czolgosz at the 1901 Worlds Fair. While Czolgosz wasn’t a formal member of any anarchist groups (they hadn’t let him in because he kept asking when they were going to start killing people, which made them suspect him of being a police plant), his reasoning for killing McKinley was based on the rhetoric of labor movements and anarchism, definitely the far Left of American political and social movements at the time.
So yeah, there’s been at least one assassination by a “liberal” in America alone.
Actually, William Mckinley was assassinated by a would-be anarchist named Leon Czolgosz at the 1901 Worlds Fair.
It’s a good example, but it’s also one that is 110 years old. I’m sure there are more recent examples as well, but nothing big in the last couple of decades comes to mind.
Right now, the mainstreaming of this rhetoric is all coming from the right. You can find this kind of eliminationist talk on the left, on blogs and in comment threads, but on the right you find it in elected officials and wealthy media talking-heads; people with an agenda to push who deliberately use this language for that purpose.
Why, I myself have occasionally expressed a desire for misfortune to befall Glenn Beck, usually involving flames and a very long flight of stairs. But I’m not in a position to make policy decisions along those lines, nor do I have a talk show with millions of viewer where I can suggest “Will no one rid me of this turbulent pundit?”
Parties out of power rarely are capable of accurately analyzing why they are out of power (hint: It has something to do with them making a muck of things). They tend to blame The Other for doing something unfair — lying, stuffing ballot boxes, etc.
Too many partisans slip over into conspiracy theories, assuming there is some vast, sinister cabal determined to promote evil by trashing their party. It is far easier & certainly far more comforting to assume some evil people somewhere have conspired to thwart one for their personal gain rather than admit one might be wrong.
This talk of blame and an attempt to conflate this article with the alarmist “video games made him murder!” camp strikes me as an alarming reaction that betrays a crucial lack of reading comprehension. At no point did MGK say “PALIN AND BECK MADE HIM DO IT.” He, in fact, stressed several times that they were not the cause. Please, I urge everyone who thinks MGK is saying that right wing political rhetoric is directly causal to what happened to re-read the article until they are no longer in possession of such a notion.
Seems the weapon used was illegal up until 2004 but Congress let the assault weapon ban lapse.
http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban
That’s gonna make for some awkward conversations as Congress talks about the victims and security.
Buzz, there is one party and one party ONLY that makes claims of electoral fraud: Republicans.
The things that Demopcrats complain about: Bush v. Gore (a Supreme Court decision so good we only know which justices signed on because of the signed dissents), voter caging, and overzealous purging of voter rolls that disporportionally disenfranchise minority voters (in Ohio and Flordia, both battleground states and in both instances by Republican Secretaries of State) are documented occurances.
Seriously, this “both sides do it” is false equlivancy. Name a liberal/progressive AM radio commentator who goes on and on about conspiricy (hell, name a liberal/progressive AM radio commentator). Name a bestselling book written by a liberal fixture that accuses the Republican officals of treason (that’s a capitol offense, b the way). Name a Democratic candidate calling for “second amendment rememdies” (cause even if the shooter had never heard of Sharon Angle, THIS is what ‘second amendment rememdies’ looks like).
The claim that everyone-does-it-and-therefore-everyone-is-equally-culpable is bullshit of the highest order, and it needs to stop.
Well, the FOX crowd has already started referring to Louchner as a “liberal” and complaining how the “Left-wing media” is going to use this as an excuse to “smear” Conservatives… so it looks like they’re just going to double-down on their rheotoric rather than even consider taking a moment for self-reflection.
I can’t say I’m suprised by that.
I think it is just adorable that anyone thinks this will have any impact on political discourse in this country.
The Republicans will act offended at the very suggestion that, by encouraging people to shoot members of their opposition, they may have encouraged someone to shoot members of their opposition, the Democrats will make a bunch of noises that sound like words without actually saying anything, then Lindsay Lohan will get caught with coke after crashing her car or some random pretty white girl will disappear or die and this whole thing will be forgotten.
US politics work in such a way that Republican politicians can sodomize a blind old priest to death in church on Easter Sunday and the Democrats will apologize for not cleaning up the body quickly enough.
A good example of modern political discourse:http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2011/01/10/stay-classy-palin-censors
“Now, this is not to say that Sarah Palin is equivalent to Osama Bin Laden; of course she isn’t. Bin Laden is a terrorist; Palin is just a generally terrible human being.”
Positioning Sarah Palin as a more photogenic, oratorical, less hands-on Abu Hamza seems to be about right, then?
[And that horrible pun is genuinely unintentional.]
So then someone ask me why Obama or Daily Kos isn’t responseable for this nutjob?
He listed he Communist Manifesto on his website so I don’t see how anyone can imply he was conservative.
Daily Kos did the exact same thing Palin has with targeting congressmen.
Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we’ll bring a gun?”
Under your logic MGK why aren’t Obama and Daily Kos just as responseable?
Note I’m not blaming Obama or Daily Kos I’m just making the point that based on the evidence and the arguments you’ve given that it’s just as likely they’re responseable.
If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
The above post was written by Glenn Reynolds but I would like to MGK to answer the question
Which is it?
A wholly false dichotomy.
How is it a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that the shooter ever saw Palin’s chart. How do we not know he saw Kos’s chart instead (They didn’t like the congresswoman either as she was too conservative for him.) If the shooter claims he did this because she was too conservative will you apologize MGK?
You say “That’s not a false dichotomy!” Then you say “Well if it isn’t one thing, it’s obviously the other.”
/Brain Explodes.
@Briareos: He also had Mein Kampf on that same list. That says to me either had no rational political ideology or he was just listing provocative choices.
“Knife to a gun fight” is a movie quote.
I would like you to explain to me exactly what “second amendment solutions” means, a quote from a Republican Senate Candidate. Because I can’t see it meaning anything other than exactly what happened this weekend.
Well rational political ideology or not, he was a registered Republican.
You see, it’s this sort of shit that makes me glad we force our politicians to refer to each other as ‘honourable/ right honourable’.
Seriously, though, maybe I’m just being naive, but I have real trouble getting my head around the idea that right-wing rhetoric refers to the opposition as a plague that must be cleansed. That strikes me as a pretty poor grasp of democracy there.
That would be US right-wing rhetoric, of course. Cameron hasn’t started telling people that the Millibands are enemies of the state.
Michele:
“Oh, could we PLEASE stop calling the shooter a “nutbag”? …I am a therapist, and…”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/thats-not-funny-my-brother-died-that-way,10921/
Gabrielle Giffords Faced Opposition from Local Anti-War, 9/11 Truth Activists
This is how local antiwar activists in Tucson have viewed Gabrielle Giffords (and her political machine) in the past. We offer our condolences for those who have died, those who were injured, and their families who are left to deal with the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. The fact is there was a lot of opposition to Gifford’s stance regarding the wars, torture and rendition, the patriot act and impeachment of the Bush administration.
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-faced-opposition.html
[…] of ever more ridiculous political rhetoric might play into our current cultural milieu. I think MGK nails it out of the park on why correlation is is wrong but context is king, and Jared pulls that into the emotional heart of the thing. That is […]
It’s entirely unrighteous to use this tragedy to further any kind of political viewpoint, be it conservative, liberal, centrist, whatever.
That being said, the right-wing faction of this country is becoming increasingly hostile. The entire concept of this being “their country” is a concept which goes against the founding ideals of this country they claim to uphold.
Hostility, especially verbalized anger from recognizable personalities, breeds violence in unstable individuals.
Again, as MGK pointed out it’s “context” not “causation”. The context is that the far right have made it their mission to combat the perceived threat of liberalism by any means necessary, fracturing the country virtually in two.
Frankly, with rising poverty levels and unemployment in addition to a divisive President for the 8th consecutive year (Bush/Obama), I fear we’re on the verge of a permanent split. One, that if left unhealed, could result in armed conflict.
I’m thinking a Blue U.S. stretching from Maine to Minnesota above the Mason-Dixon Line (but including MD and DC). A Red U.S. from Virginia to Arizona. And then a Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada Western U.S. which quickly becomes a socialist paradise with legal gambling, prostitution, and marijuana. No? Damn. I can dream, can’t I?
I noticed that you accidentally left out all the left wing bulls eyes that were put on right wing targets from the DNC and the Daily Kos to name a few. And all the inflammatory and violent rhetoric used by our own President. I’m sure it was just an oversight. Maybe you’ll include those in your next blog.
If you need sources just email me and I’ll be happy to provide you with a couple of dozen.
Regards,
Sean
Just long enough for you to put those together with Photoshop, eh Sean?
“Well, the FOX crowd has already started referring to Louchner as a “liberal” and complaining how the “Left-wing media” is going to use this as an excuse to “smear” Conservatives… so it looks like they’re just going to double-down on their rheotoric rather than even consider taking a moment for self-reflection.
I can’t say I’m suprised by that.”
Of course; FOX routinely puts a “D” next to Republican politicians that aren’t following the narrative or are getting into trouble. It disgustingly transparent bullshit.
sean
[citation needed]
Right-Wing violent rethoric spews from the most prominent conservative spokespeople up to and including government officials.
*If* the President engaged in “violent rethoric”, that would be relevant.
Daily Kos is a fucking blog.
Sean is referencing a map that put archery targets on important states, which is exactly the same as putting gun sights on people and giving their names, because I am a crazy.
Well, Sean, Salmo, I’m still waiting for someone to explain what “second amendment remedies” means.
While you’re at it, explain what “the ballot box or the ammo box” and “ballots or bullets” means. Because both those phrases were used by speakers at Republican rallies in the last election cycle.
And, even if the shooter at in Tuscon never, ever heard these thing, please explain how those are not calls for political violence.
Honestly I could care less about the rhetoric used by republican or democratic politicians. It means nothing….targets, crosshairs, battleground states are metaphoric expressions used by politicians for decades.
This murderer was a Satan worshiping lunatic. Those murders had nothing to do with bullseyes on maps or the neighbors dog talking to him. It’s empty rhetoric. What did right winged lunatic said “if they bring a knife we bring a gun”? Oh yeah that was your president. I wonder what he meant by that?
This is just a disgusting attempt by the left to capitalize on the deaths of these people for political gain, by attempting to enact stricter gun laws and freedom of speech. (Congressman Brady of Pa.) Interesting that the Fairness Doctrine is being tossed around…like Rham Emanuel always said, never let a good crisis go to waste. The left has no shame.
You lefties will take any opportunity, as vial as it may be in the wake of these deaths, to attack the right and attack Sarah Palin.
.
Yes, the Daily Kos is a rag, and Sarah Palin is not an elected official. She doesn’t introduce bills, she doesn’t vote on them, and she has no active influence in anybody’s life last time I checked.
And RTam or whatever the fuck your name is yes the Daily Kos is a fucking rag as you put it, but how about this from the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
Wow those look like targets to me!!
And look what all you peace loving Democrats caused…I was gonna say “happy now?”, but I’m sure that you really are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgJKNpjSNI
So…the calculated rhetoric of politicians who have polished their speeches to a shine means nothing, but the quick-fire Twitters of random angry people are worth getting mad over?
‘Kay.
So just to be clear, Sean, your stance is- This guy was crazy, but using this as impetus to enact stricter gun laws, perhaps in order to ensure that crazy people can’t buy guns, is a vile attempt by the left to exploit this for political gain. Stay angry, my friend.
I image the President mean to quote from a well known Oscar winning film when he used that quote. And ever time I’ve ever heard anyone use that quote not one of them was ever talking about, you know, shooting someone in a fight. It was always about having more determination than the other guy to get the job done.
Now saying “second amendment remedies” is NOT a quote from a well known Oscar winning film, and as far as I can tell, is not metaphorical in any way.
Can you honestly not tell the difference there?
And I notice you didn’t answer my question. Even if the shooter was a satan worshiper and had never heard any of the rhetoric, what exactly, if not this, is a second amendment remedy to an election?
Oh I got it John- thanks! I missed the part where Obama was talking about Oscar winning films at the time when he said “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” I thought he was talking about beating down Republican adversaries. Silly me…boy do I feel embarrassed!
What do you think Democrat Paul Kanjornski meant when he said “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him” when he was talking about Rick Scott Governor of Florida?
Do all you lemmings really believe only inflammatory rhetoric comes from the right?????
And Candlejack- easy question for you since you missed the entire point of my comment. I’ll make it multiple choice to help you a little because obviously you are a little slow.
Who is more likely to murder somebody?
A. a member of Congress
B. a random angry person on Twitter
(pick B pick B!!!)
this is the product of the left wing hatred toward Sarah Palin- yes all those angry harmless people on twitter!
**note to all politicians
Violent and inflammatory rhetoric is permissible if you are simply quoting from a movie
see John 2.0
Sean, the President said that when he was running against McCain, and he was talking about how he would respond to any attacks the McCain campaign made against him.
Saying that, if someone attacks you, you will respond with greater force than they used is not the same thing as when, say, Sharron Angle said that if she wasn’t elected, someone might have to then shoot Harry Reid.
Context is a wonderful thing, is it not?
In what context do you think Democrat Kanjornski’s comment was meant? Still looking it up??
Hey, sean, maybe when you’re talking about how dangerous crazies are angry people on the internet, you should try to turn down your own anger dial. I didn’t attack you, just questioned your stance. Your over-the-top reaction? Yeah, that’s why people think the angry rhetoric comes mostly from the right….
So are you admitting that you were wrong about Obama’s remark, Sean, or just trying to change the subject?
As for Kanjornski, he was wrong to say that, just as Sharron Angle was wrong to say that if she lost to Harry Reid, people would have to resort to “Second Amendment solutions”.
I am not changing the subject, or admitting I am wrong, or giving any other answer that you decide for me.
I am wondering if you think it’s OK for our president to use analogies or metaphors using guns or knives as long as it comes from a movie?
I understand what Obama meant when he used that term. He also talked about the folks in Philly who like a good brawl. I know that he didn’t intend for anybody to bring a gun to strike down his political enemies, just like Sarah Palin didn’t mean for anyone to assassinate political adversaries. And yet the left cannot let it go- there are thousands of news media, columnists, and bloggers who continue the assault on Palin.
I will reiterate my point one last time…Both sides are guilty of using inflammatory rhetoric, but I don’t believe they are intentionally inciting murder, although Sharron Angle’s comments may have been. And yet the left turned on the Palin attack machine. I am very confused by this. The only thing that comes to mind is that the left is afraid of her-possibly running for president or some other obscure reason.
FYI I am an armed conservative- not a Sarah Palin fan-I like her conservate beliefs and patriotism, but I think she’s unelectable and wish she would go away.
sean: Who cares if you’re armed?
If I had a high-profile blog where I said “Y’know, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all”, and then some crazy person went and shot Person X dead, I might not feel directly responsible, but I’d at least feel bad about it.
I don’t see any demands anywhere for Palin to be arrested or Rush Limbaugh to be tried for murder. Only impassioned suggestions that maybe, just maybe, we can try having political debate without thinly (or un-) veiled threats of violence against specific opponents, and see if that helps.
I mean, it’ll be pretty hard for anyone to avoid saying “gun” ever again, even if they don’t quote movies. But how hard can it be to avoid saying “Gosh, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all, whose picture I’ve helpfully provided in this sniper-sight frame?” Is that really so much to ask?
Sean, I’ve been a public servant for 10 years. In that time I’ve had to evacuate a building because of a bomb threat (my state legislative building, right before a vote on a tax increase), I’ve had the cops come to my building becasue someone down the hall from my office open a threatening letter that contained white powder, I’ve had the EPA come to my building because someone dropped off a gallon of toxic subsances to the front desk, and I’ve had the person who in the office directly above mine recieve a call tellint her there would be “another McVeigh” (a call that prompted my boss to remove my office’s physical address off the web). So I take statement of politically motivated violence quite seriously.
“Both sides doing it” is not what propted a Republican distric chair in AZ to step down, it was the worry that a Tea Party Member was going to shoot up his house. (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AowZXHq1)
The fact that your status as a gun owner is part of your political self-identification is part of the problem.
MacReady- very well and passionately put. I acquiesce to your point…
However, I haven’t seen any blog that said those words,“Y’know, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all”.
I saw a blog with targets put on political opposition, which has been done for years. I also saw a high profile liberal blog with a bullseye over Giffords for not being liberal enough, but I don’t hear the outrage, or even a mention.
As I previously pointed out, battle ground, bulls eye, targeted, and even “campaign” are all terms that refer to political war and war zones. And that terminology has been used for decades. You have a nut case that attempts an assassination on a member of Congress, which by the way he has been shown to be obsessed with Giffords since 2007- before anyone heard of Sarah Palin and before the Tea Party(fyi)
You have this Sheriff Dupnik and liberal media going on the tour blaming Rush, FoxNews, conservative talk, etc. and as a result, there is talk of stricter gun laws, Fairness Doctrine, etc. Sadly, it is fueling the distrust, anger, and even hatred that the political parties suffer from.
So as a result, I thinks it’s a fair assessment that the left is using this tragedy for political gain.
I hope the president urges our country come together in his speech tonight. There is a lot of healing that needs to take place. Personally I think he’s enjoying the mileage and the divide-I hope I’m wrong.
Hey Zurn I fucking care…how’s that?
John 2.0 the statement that I am a gun owner describes why I am passionate of the argument to defend the 2nd amendment, And why I am angry at law makers for politicizing these murders to advance a gun control position. There are 68 million legal gun owners who didn’t murder anybody yesterday.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Sarahpac1.jpg
THESE ARE THE SAME THING I MEAN JUST LOOK AT THEM THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY THE SAME
To be fair there are also millions of car owners who didn’t murder anybody yesterday. But we’re still pretty strict as to who’s allowed to drive a car.
And I don’t believe the people you’re angry at are thinking “nyah ha ha, at last an excuse to implement our evil scheme”. I think they are honestly trying to implement the best solution to minimize the likelihood of future tragedies. That is to say, they are (and have been) proposing policy in response to events, not gathering events as tools to advance their predetermined policies.
“I understand what Obama meant when he used that term.”
Then why did you quote it out of context, Sean?
Also, in what way was Sharron Angle’s statement about “Second Amendment solutions” not either an incitement toward violence or “merely” a veiled threat toward her opponent?
I didn’t quote it out of context Prodigal-I don’t think I can help you anymore. Your redundancy is tiring.
MacReady- I would like to think you are right, but I am much more cynical on issues like this. Obama has a very long history on gun control.
Indeed he does… and the USA has an even longer history of gun violence.
That’s true..I wonder if the majority of violent criminals in the jail system are republicans or democrats??
Fortunately for us law abiding gun owners we have the protection of the Constitution.
The difference is that when someone on the left says something stupidly violent, we cringe and think it was stupid (and transparent toadying towards conservative voters.) When someone on the right says something stupidly violent, which happens far more often and with more ferocity, the right rears up to defend him/her.
And really, you still think a requirement of psychological evaluation in order to buy a gun is unreasonable?
There you go again over-generalizing the right. Do you have any factual basis for your conclusion?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable-how exactly would you institute that?
Personally, I think any kind of violent imagery used by a person in a position of power aginst an identiiable group of people is abhorrent. I don’t care what “side” they’re on.
It just so happens that this kind of imagery is used most pervasivly by right wing politicians. They simply use it with more intensity and frequency.
And yes maybe AZ could use stricter gun laws. If they had laws like several other states that banned the type of extended magazine the shooter used, he would only have gotten 15 shots instead of 33. That kind of thinking isn’t “capitalizing on a tragedy for political gain”, it’s saying “Hey, maybe we should change some stuff so tragedies like this are less likely to happen.”
Also, when your country has a much higher rate of gun-related violence than other developed countries, maybe you should take a look at fixing that. To say that America doesn’t have an epidemic of gun violence is laughable.
I don’t believe that inflammatory words are pervasively used more by the right…it is just under reported by the liberal media which most of you watch…Most of you FoxNews haters don’t realize that you are only getting half the news.
This memorial is a travesty…surprised they are not passing out foam fingers
Man, Sean didn’t just drink the kool-aid, he’s been soaking in it!
Anything to pimp the reich-wing nationalist paranoia, eh, sean?
The abusive economic values. The obsolete social values. The moral values based on believing that metaphor for the unknown you call “god” is real.
Yeah, your “half” just has so much to offer the world.
so MirrorMan did you think all the cheering, clapping and howling was dignified wise ass??
Zenrage go take your holier than thou drug infested BS somewhere else. Do you honestly think I give two fucks what you think?? I’m just killing some time with you halfwits to amuse myself.
So…
I’m honestly surprised that this is continuing at this point. Sean, do you have a point you’re trying to make here? Because from where I’m trying to stand you have a) ignored answering a fundamental question about your position, b) quoted people out of context and made random topic-shifts when you’re losing ground, and c), which is really the thing that gets me here, completely ignoring the point that MGK was making here in the first place, to whit that this is a matter of APPROPRIATE CONTEXT, not blame of any sort.
Are you smoking dope in here seriously??? or are you just that stupid?
I didn’t quote anybody out of context. I was drawing a parallel between PalinPac’s bullseyes and Obama’s quote from a movie…neither was meant to directly cause harm to another person. So why is one acceptable and the other…well you get the idea.
I didn’t randomly change an argument because I was losing ground, but if it makes you feel good..have at it. I randomly posted an expression about the travesty of a memorial service-I’m sure all you Libs think it was solemn and dignified. Yes it wasn’t on point, so fucking what.
Most of you are a just lemmings in here…most haven’t addressed most of what I have written…like a kid on ADD, just repeating the same mantra, same questions..read on- the answers are right there. You only hear what you want.
There are some intelligent and sincere people in here, and I appreciate your dialogue, but most are internet tough guys sitting in the wings taking potshots anonymously from your couch. And if you start losing ground hoping one of your Lib friends will come and rescue with some obscure fantasy argument.
My favorite response the conclusion Chimikonatsu- I cannot help your ignorance and inability to form an accurate conclusion based on reality. Keep that fantasy going in your head if it’s working for you! I’ve wasted enough time with you half wits-take care.
Sean, I don’t have a problem with the funeral. I’ve seen Irish wakes and New Orleans funerals that were about three thousand percent wilder. The people present chose to mourn as they saw fit, and honestly, you have zero right to judge that. There is no mandatory requirement that funerals be depressing.
That’s…odd. I remember a similar, almost identical criticism on message boards after the Mel Carnahan memorial service in 2000 (Carnahan was running for Senate when he died in a plane crash). The phrase that sticks out in my mind is “they did everything short of pass out pom-poms”.
After Googling: yep, there’s the ‘foam fingers’ line from both a Michelle Malkin tweet and Pajamas Media websites.
Good points, all, but ultimately: Loughner has been obsessed with Giffords since 2007. It’s really premature at this time, mere days after the attack, to blame it on violent rhetoric from ANY party.
Sean, It wasn’t Islamic liberals that slammed those planes into the WTC on 9/11.
Look, Sean, you don’t know know me, and I don’t know you. But judging from your posts, I am damn glad I don’t. You have been nothing but an unabashed conservative screaming about how wronged your political heroes are about this whole thing, and from everything I have read on a multitude of sites (both progressive AND conservative) I have come to the personal conclusion that the majority of the people you seem to hold as ‘heroes’ couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with directions on the bottom.
This comment above all strikes me as as the most asinine of all you have stated:
“Most of you FoxNews haters don’t realize that you are only getting half the news.”
Really? You think Fox News is ACTUALLY truthful?
Look, you may have bathed in the Kool-Aid as I thought, but let me tell you one thing that may have escaped you:
The HUGE majority of people in this country are really F*&KING tired of politicians screaming at each other and being obstructionist about going about the business of running this country! You can blame whatever goddamn side you wish, but at the end of the day, THE END OF THE DAY, it has been the conservative, bible-sucking, holier-than-you-can-ever-fu$%ing-hope-to-be-and-you-are-going-to-hell-because-of-it Republican party and their mouthpieces on FAUX News who have been spewing this crap, and all of your pathetic attempts to defend your morally bankrupt group of Gestapo-wannabees are doing noting more to expose you as being just as much a useless bunch of crap as they are.
The majority of people in this country want to get the business of government DONE. And we REALLY don’t give a rats ass about what people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom! But you, and, it seems, your CONSERVATIVE MASTERS, need to be sure that you are fully armed in case someone breaks into your apartment looking for extra lube.
You are so busy looking for someone who is out to take your stuff, and so ready to shoot them for it, that you wouldn’t recognize Jesus himself if he came begging for a scrap of bread.
You aren’t just sad, you’re pathetic. And I think the only reason you are on this thread is that you were looking through the RSS feeds and saw something on Palin that wanted you to wave your dick around and look like a bigshot.
Good luck with that.
Sorry, MGK, I am usually better than this. But sometimes these POS’s just get me going the wrong way! I will try to behave better in the future.
I need to make a correction to my previous comment: I meant the Paul Wellstone memorial service in 2002.
It sounds like you’re creating troubles yourself by trying to clear up this problem instead of taking a look at why
their is a dilemma within the 1st place
The pres said exactly what sean said he wanted to hear, and people applauded, and he still wasn’t happy. *shrug* Anger troll is angry.
@MirrorMan
The one right that Conservatives will fight to maintain moreso than the right to bear arms is the right to remain ignorant, regardless of the cost.
Here’s a smarter person than me talking about how to implement psychiatric check-ups as a requirement for gun ownership: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/want-a-gun-get-a-prescrip_b_806359.html