Arizona Shooting Spree, Congresswoman, judge, among victims...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    But I do pay attention to local, US and World events, it's just I pull the info, I don't like to get it pushed at me, even if I might generally agree with the person doing the pushing.

    And I would think that calls for violence by a mainstream politician or broadcaster wouldn't be something that I would miss. But maybe I did, so I'm asking you, who made the claim that MANY are out there to make your case.

    Provide backup for your claims.

    Arthur
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Let me get this straight.

    If someone believes that some pending healthcare legislation could have adverse affects on the elderly, possibly all the way to avoidable deaths, they shouldn't discuss it because someone might be moved to violence?

    Like when I suggested that the Medicade "Donut hole" in coverage, passed by bureaucrats, was causing increased deaths in people like my grandma because to ofthe the elderly had to choose between heat/food and essential medicines, that my comments were somehow VIOLENT?

    Arthur
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    See? You have to rephrase it to make it sound reasonable. In fact, they were not warning of adverse effects, they said a panel of bureaucrats would decide whether the elderly will live or die, based only on considerations of cost. And they called it a "death panel". It was a lie, there is no such thing (although there is presently in private health care insurance).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    They tend to come from the sources that are all about "pushing." I.e., Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. So if you're avoiding those sources (as you say you are) then you're necessarily going to miss the violence.

    Here's Glenn Beck fantasizing about looking Michael Moore in the eyes while murdering him with his bare hands (and how Jesus might well approve):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg

    Here's Rush Limbaugh asserting that the Democratic Congressional leadership are terrorists out to destroy America, and that the Pentagon is fighting the wrong enemies in the Middle East:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/limbaugh-pelosi-reid-terrorists_n_797675.html

    And there is of course the famous Ann Coulter quote about Timothy McVeigh (her only regret is that he didn't target the New York Times instead). Or Palin publicizing maps with targets on enemy congressional districts.

    If you can't see the calls to violence there, you aren't looking.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And it should be noted that healthcare is rationed today. Some people do die today because they cannot afford needed medical proceedures because insurance will not pay or individuals cannot get healthcare insurance.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
  11. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    The problem is connecting any of this to what happened, and the thing is, you can't. Neither can the sheriff. Neither can anybody.

    I mean, one the one hand it's tough to try to make a causal chain for any unbalanced person. On the other hand, what little pieces of the chain we do have do not point to any of the above.

    This all is beginning to remind me of Columbine, when people in the Media started reporting rumor innendo and complete and utter politically-based nonsense as fact. The result was that the "facts" people remember about that incident today -- Trench Coat Mafia, targeting athletes, bullied on by people -- are all completely false.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That doesn't mean the Columbine shootings were not a good opportunity to talk about violence in schools and bullying.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's useless to talk to you, since you don't even seem know what my claim is.
     
  14. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    See that's the problem.

    Tragedies should not be viewed as "opportunities" to sound off about whatever grievances people mistakenly connect to them. The Columbine shooters were not bullied, so bullying is not even a legitimate topic.

    Mental health was the relevant topic, but since there is no "fix" for sociopaths (only coping strategies) and activist groups can't get time and attention by talking about it, they decided to talk about bullying and whatever else was the topic de jour at that time (I seem to remember video game violence was also raised). The problem was those kids were just screwed up.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    This and That

    I think there's a clear difference between what you're describing and simply making shit up. Republicans did the latter, specifically to frighten people with the idea of mortal threats against their families from the Obama administration.

    • • •​

    Well, it's like the Arizona death panel controversy, with Gov. Brewer actually refusing incoming funds that could treat these individuals in order to grandstand against the federal government.

    Rationing because the directors of an insurance company want another vacation home? That's okay with conservatives. Rationing for the sake of Republican demagoguery against the Obama administration? That's great with conservatives.

    Given that there's no public option, doesn't that mean it's the private companies that will do the rationing? Then conservatives should be complaining about the cheering the private rationing like they already do.

    Oh ... right. This isn't really about rationing. Or health policy. It's about establishing and securing permanent Republican majorities in American government.

    In that case, there's no real need for consistency or principles on their part, is there?
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Hmmm..


    It's not the right, Limbaugh said, but the left that glorifies criminal behavior and violent imagery. "'No, no,' they say, 'that's art!' Rap music? 'That's art!'"

    -----------------------

    "At no time has anybody ever called for violence," Limbaugh said. "We've never subtly promoted it." And, by the way, the Democrats' language is and was worse.



    (Source)


    Right on Rush! You tell 'em!

    But ...


    Hang on a second!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's just a coincidence, but it's an unfortunate one nonetheless. Reddit user carblos was in Tucson, near the site of the Arizona shooting, and noticed this billboard for Rush Limbaugh's radio show:..


    The billboard has apparently been there for quite some time, but Limbaugh's people might want to take it down now.

    UPDATE: A spokesperson for Premier Networks, the company that syndicates Limbaugh's show, told Politico that the billboard was taken down on Monday, two days after the shooting.


    (Source)


    Nice "art" Rush.

    I guess he's right in a way. They never "subtly promoted it". They did it quite openly.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    That's not where the term came from.

    The original House healthcare reform bill included a Medicare provision reimbursing doctors for advising patients on end-of-life care, but was dropped from the final bill after some conservatives said it could have led to government-run “death panels.”

    Or as this WSJ article says:

    The left won't admit that Sarah Palin had a point about rationed care.

    So you say it's a lie, but the reality is it was a debate and you just didn't like the term those opposed to the reform bill chose, but it most definately was a valid issue to discuss.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html

    and

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...in-memo-on-death-panels-that-reignited-debate

    What it wasn't was VIOLENT.

    But what is REALLY disturbing is that you are apparently all for suppression of FREE SPEECH because you can, via some TWISTED mental process, get from Sarah Palin using the term "Death Panel" while legitimately debating the possible impact of health care reform to what happened in Tuscon by a mentally deranged kid with an appetite for conspiracy theories and illegal drugs.

    Friggin amazing.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Sorry, you have to find the clip of the WHOLE segment.

    I found at least one source that said this was a "take off" on a previous Michael Moore film, but without hearing more than that little clip, how can one tell the context.

    And context is everything.

    What I do know is true, is he was working for CNN at the time and they wouldn't have allowed this unless it was OBVIOUS to listeners that it was a joke, or they would have fired him.

    Arthur
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There was never a panel proposed that would decide if you live or die. End of life counseling is about hospice care and deciding what you want done to you when you are already near death.

    I'm not for suppression of free speech, I think we should deal with it the same way we deal with the use of the "N" word for blacks, by public shaming (also free speech).
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think you caught Limbaugh with his pants down. Excellent post.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    David Brock: Beck ‘responsible for 3 thwarted assassination attempts’


    “I mean, Glenn Beck himself has been responsible for three thwarted assassination attacks this year,” Brock said. “Well, you want to know what they are? So he burned Nancy Pelosi in effigy on his set, he tried to poison her with a chalice. Some weeks later somebody tried to firebomb Nancy Pelosi’s house. That guy’s mother went on television and said he gets all his ideas from Fox News.”

    Brock said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray received a death threat in April 2010 because she supported health care reform. Brock added that the threatener’s cousin said he was slowly drawn into Glenn Beck’s world.

    In October 2010, Byron Williams was charged with participating in a shootout and targeting the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation.

    “[Byron Williams] says Glenn Beck is his school teacher on television and points specific episodes of the Glenn Beck Show that inspired him to do it,” Brock said.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/13/d...hwarted-assassination-attempts/#ixzz1B3k8nGIA
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    reading the new time magazine today and I read an atricle that sparked an interesting aidea here. that this shooting was a profound rebuttal of a group ideological stances



    the stances are know as libertarianism.


    the more I think about it true. the open premissiveness without regard to consequence that is the norm in libertarianism definitely contributed to this tragedy.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes. And characterizing my claims falsely - like this:
    You have no evidence for these false representations of my posts, and you should by your own criterion stop making them.
    Predicted back in 2007, and years before (this rhetoric has been building since Reagan, and hit disturbing levels of insane shrillness back in the early 90s with Clinton's election; and this latest shooting isn't the first fulfillment of the predictions, either) based on the rhetoric coming from the faction that had taken over the Republican Party and their media propaganda outlets. That faction morphed into, among other symptoms, the Tea Party, wherein a whole bunch of nutjobs found a way to pretend they hadn't been backing the people they had been backing, never really liked W or other Republicans whose doings had had visible consequences, and had nothing to do with the stinking mess they and their chosen ones had made of the Untied States of America, its government, economy, reputation, and moral character.

    You put on three cornered hat and the memories of the bad stuff just fade away, or something.

    Nobody - not even Joe, I think, and certainly not me - is claiming that Loughner was motivated by some kind of political ideology he had garnered from the reasoning and explications of the Tea Party pundits. You keep asserting what nobody disagrees with, and claiming we do.

    Sure. These guys normally want to be getting revenge, or acting as heroes to somebody - we know why a crazy person might think shooting Reagan might look heroic to Jodie Foster: why would Lougher think shooting a Democratic female Congressman and her supporters would make him a hero to somebody?

    How did he choose his target - his non-random, specifically aimed at, personally selected and hunted and planned for target? Who was he imagining would see him as a hero, and why?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011

Share This Page