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

So Now We Know What It Takes

So Now We Know What It Takes

Perhaps the greatest benefit we might find in the Arizona tragedy is the end of a conservative lie.

Throughout my lifetime, conservatives have charged that people are too stupid to be allowed access to certain media: books, movies, television, and music.

A kid might listen to an anti-drug song, and that will turn him into a Satanist.

And, yes, I'm aware that the preceding sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's the thing—we've been hearing this sort of argument for years.

Decades, at least.

Now that circumstance has turned on the conservatives, they are seeking to divorce themselves from the philosophies that have brought them benefits over the years they have been happy to enjoy. Of course, they don't want to admit that they were wrong. Rather, they want to make it known how unjust it is to consider an outcome according to their own assertions of reality.

And, yes, that does show that conservatives don't really have any interest in working toward a better society. Their philosophy is nothing more than a bacchanal of self-glorification. After all, it seems they were simply talking out of their asses for the last however many decades, and it's our fault for not getting the joke.

I mean, sure, it went to federal court, and people were threatened with prison time over music sales, but isn't it a great joke?

No matter how we look at the conservative repudiation of their own rhetoric, they come out looking worse for it.

So this is what we get: It's over. Conservatives are conceding a broad array of their fearmongering rhetoric.

No more protesting books in libraries because Madeleine L'Engle might twist their minds with witchcraft, lesbianism, and communism. No more protesting music simply because conservatives don't understand art. At the very heart of their argument in those cases is exactly what they refuse in this case.

No more arguing that if we're not mean enough to gay people, heterosexual youth will suddenly turn gay. After all, as has been asserted here, if there is no direct connection—e.g., if Loughner is not directly connected to Sarah Palin or the Tea Party—then there is no possibility of influence; ergo, if a kid is straight, there's no chance that a lack of open bigotry in society is going to transform his sexual orientation.

So that's what we get out of this: Conservatives are now denouncing their own rhetoric in order to escape considerations of culpability. Very well. That rhetoric is now acknowledged as false by the very people who have promoted it. Let them never ask us to suffer through that lie again.

And in the end, that's not so little. The end of this form of conservative lying should bring dramatic results insofar as it provides at least one avenue by which the public discourse will no longer be dragged down into vitriolic chaos in order to satisfy the right wing's need to infect all discussions with bigoted, self-aggrandizing fantasies.

More to the point, we now know what it takes to compel conservatives to repudiate their own dishonesty: mass murder.

The only real question is whether our conservative neighbors will have the decency to honor their own repudiation of their own logic. Many will expect that, soon enough, the point will be forgotten, and conservatives will go back to arguing the very rhetoric they've disowned. And, yes, compared to history, there is just cause for that expectation. But we need to remind our neighbors, when it comes up again, that these rhetorical devices aren't valid, that they have already rejected such assertions, and that the only reason they're bothering us with that shit again is that they're being dishonest.

It only took a mass murder. And it's a small prize society wins, albeit one with tremendous implications.

So remind them of it the next time they dare insult people with those arguments.

Hold them accountable to what they have said. Remind them of the benefits they have enjoyed, and how we were willing to exempt them from decades worth of their own political arguments—how the very things they said were true of people aren't supposed to apply to them. And reiterate what bullshit they're pushing.

Let them have their scot-free fantasy, since they're quite clearly incapable of understanding basic human psychology.

And next time they complain about how media is turning girls into sluts, or boys into fags, or that anti-drug art raises a generation of Satanists, remind them of this episode, and how desperately they refused their own logic and rhetoric.

Meanwhile, I'll start considering conservatives honest, decent people when they start acting like it.

For years, I've tried to play along and pretend someone who persistently lies to my face, insults my intelligence for an ego rush, and whose arguments cannot be trusted insofar as the conservative will, for the sake of convenience, disown when it becomes embarrassing and rekindle when circumstance suggests it might be profitable, is actually a decent, respectable member of the human endeavor.

No more. They have earned this scorn with blood and hatred. They have rejected generations of their own political argument. It's time for them to choose one road or the other, and accept the ramifications of that choice.

No more of this picking and choosing. It only takes a mass murder to get these people to wake up to their own bullshit. And now that they're standing face to face with it, the worst thing we can do is let them escape and pretend the never showed such blatant hypocrisy.

Give them the verdict they want. And then hold them accountable to the necessary standard.

Because, in the end, we've learned a valuable lesson about conservatives. For all their talk of accountability, it is unfair to apply that standard to them.

Or maybe "learned" is too strong a word. We've been reminded of the absolutely indecent antipathy our conservative neighbors show things like truth and integrity.

And this time, there is a death toll. So it would behoove us to remind them the next time they (ahem) "forget".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL what are you talking about? This isn't the end of anything - there isn't going to be any dimunition in those types of "arguments" coming from conservatives or anyone else. If hypocrisy on such matters carried any noteworthy political consequences, we'd never have been subjected to such inanities the first time around. The GOP isn't writing some philosophical treatise for academic review (where questions of consistency like this would matter), but playing politics. And in that context, there really isn't any connection whatsoever between what's happening here, and the silly arguments about heavy metal or gays or whatever. Those arguments were never intended for the sort of audience that would think the issue through on that level, in the first place.

Yeah, good luck with that one... there have been death tolls plenty of times in the past, without any noticeable effect on such behaviors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NOPE

Your problem is you take the most conservative views and write like it applies to all conservatives.

It doesn't.

It would be just as wrong for me to take the most liberal of views and say they apply to all Liberals.

They already are honest decent people.
Doesn't matter one whit what you think.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

History, Hypocrisy, and Where Have All the Good Conservatives Gone?

Well, it depends on a given view. In the case of conservatives, censorship, and controversial expression, there is a history that runs longer than I have been alive.

And I find it interesting that you would suggest that, after a lifetime of witnessing certain behavior within a certain group, you would suggest that the behavior should not be attributed as characteristic to the group.

This episode demonstrates a severe dearth of integrity among conservatives. For decades, they argued a certain perspective. In all that time, they enjoyed their electoral successes, alienated portions of society, and persecuted their neighbors. And now that they have to answer to the very concept they espoused, the actual argument they have been putting before society for decades at least, now that principle is wrong and unjust and how dare anyone suggest conservatives should have to answer for it.

No, Arthur, they're not. If they were willing to enjoy the benefits they harvested from promoting the idea, they cannot except themselves from its application. And all of those theoretical good and decent conservatives who could have put a stop to the decades of madness and bullshit chose not to; they had other reasons for enjoying the benefits.

They've had forty, fifty, sixty years at least to put a stop to the very rhetoric they reject today, and chose not to.

If they didn't believe it was true, they've had all those years to stand up and say, "Now wait a second, why are we doing this? If we don't believe it true, why are we saying it over and over and over again?"

Hardly a surprise. It's been long known that conservatives don't give a damn what other people think.

Still, though, Arthur, I'm curious as to your perspective: Why are conservatives suddenly—in this specific circumstance—rejecting the rhetoric they've promoted for years?

That is: What changed, aside from who the argument is being applied to?

I mean, there needs to be a better reason why the argument so suddenly and conveniently lost its validity among conservatives than the fact that the scrutiny it invokes is being applied to conservatives.

 

Nope, again, it's no more than applying the extreme end of Conservatism to all conservatives.

Your logic doesn't impress.

I know of not a single major Republican/Conservative that wants to suppress free speech.

Unlike all you liberals who are trying to use this tragedy as an excuse to bring back the "fairness doctrine" because otherwise no one will listen to you.

Arthur

 

@Tiassa

I doubt it. The conservatives don't own the mass murder, even the press concedes this, and now they have basically blamed the Liberals for using the mass murder for personal gain. Just read the headlines Limbaugh has put out today: "Liberals Lament: Tucson Shooting Fails to End the Right-Wing Media"

The Right wing have their own convictions and are no more likely to change them than you are. The Right Wing are no more likely to tone down their rhetoric than you are to tone down your contempt for them. I mean why should they? They don't own the shooting in Arizona, didn't cause it and now they can belly up how Fuller went into a Tea Party meeting, took a picture of the speaker and then yelled "You're dead" and called everyone in the room a bunch of "whores". When its being said that Fuller, who has been carted away to a psych unit, was distraught over the shooting of Gifford they turn to the dismissal used by the Left which is that Fuller's mental state of mind is of no concern to them.

Just look at all his headlines: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Or O'Reilly:

Faced with rising anger against ideological zealots who have turned the murderous atrocity in Arizona into a political circus, President Obama had to respond. In an excellent speech eulogizing the six dead and the critically injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Mr. Obama appealed to the nation to cool down and stop the nonsense. His signature line was, "What we cannot do is to use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other."Unfortunately, his words came too late.The struggle for political dominance in this country is now so intense that scorched earth is the order of the day. The left is furious that the progressive agenda is failing, while the right believes it is on the cusp of losing traditional America and must take drastic measures to save the Republic. In the middle of all this is a relatively inexperienced liberal thinking President who often looks stunned by the vitriol directed toward him. There is no question that, with the rise of the Internet, where anonymous bloggers can level the vilest accusations, the political debate has changed for the worse. No longer is the smartest guy in the room awarded the trophy. Now the accolades often go to smear merchants who delight in personal attacks and injurious invective. But when a federal judge, a sitting Congresswoman, and a nine-year-old girl hit the floor riddled with bullets, you would think the nasty rhetoric might be shelved for a couple of days to allow for grieving. You would think. Americans well understand what has happened this week and they are outraged by irresponsible pundits blaming their political enemies for contributing to the murders. President Obama must know that things are getting out of control, and that he must begin calling people out. The problem is that some of the president's most ardent supporters are responsible for the current madness. So Mr. Obama kept his criticism generic and avoided specificity, to the vast relief of the New York Times.

http://www.billoreilly.com/site/rd?satype=13&said=12&url=/newslettercolumn?pid=30930

They are taking what the Left has used and are turning it against them. Something I quite expected would happen and why I thought it was an error, not to mention tasteless, for the Left to get on that band-wagon.

There are no wins here, not for anyone. I mean you say 'we know what it takes' for their rhetoric to end but really what we know is that it takes mass murder for the Left to actively respond to what they say they have always believed to be dangerous rhetoric. When a real right wing nut was running around with explosives intent on blowing up the ACLU in California, an act that was admittedly political, you would have thought that the Left would have acted then and use it as an opportunity to address rant radio, but they didn't, it was foiled and no one died then. So you haven't proven this is what it takes to change the Right you only prove that this is what it takes to mobilize the Left. Like I said no one comes out with clean hands on this one.

 

You've made yourself quite clear

Wait, wait, wait. Weren't you just trying to wave your liberal credentials at me? And now you're using Rush Limbaugh as an example of "the press"?

And Bill O'Reilly?

Although I do agree with O'Reilly that the rhetoric likely won't lighten up. (Note to Quad: I'm just being hopeful.)

And what you're missing here is that the Left has turned the Right's argument against them. For decades conservatives have been insisting on the kind of influences from media that they and their defenders now claim are impossible.

Given the number of people who have been hurt by the influence argument over the course of decades, and the fact that we still hear it in other issues today—gay rights, for instance—one might be given to wonder why, now that conservatives must answer to their own rhetoric, they should be given a free pass.

Ah, yes. Anything to blame the liberals.

There has been talk about right-wing rhetoric over the last couple years, including when the tax protester flew an airplane into a building. And, yes, conservatives felt there could be no possible connection, and that it was undignified to suggest one existed.

This time, the fact that the target was officially targeted by the right wing changes the dynamic somewhat. This time, the question is asked because it needs to be asked.

And the answer, as you have suggested repeatedly, is that observable reality doesn't apply—e.g., one must be an active adherent, subscriber, or participant in a movement in order to be influenced by it, and we already know that's not true.

But we have seen what it takes for conservatives to abandon their own arguments. You know, like I said, and fairly explicitly:

So that's what we get out of this: Conservatives are now denouncing their own rhetoric in order to escape considerations of culpability. Very well. That rhetoric is now acknowledged as false by the very people who have promoted it. Let them never ask us to suffer through that lie again.

And in the end, that's not so little. The end of this form of conservative lying should bring dramatic results insofar as it provides at least one avenue by which the public discourse will no longer be dragged down into vitriolic chaos in order to satisfy the right wing's need to infect all discussions with bigoted, self-aggrandizing fantasies.

More to the point, we now know what it takes to compel conservatives to repudiate their own dishonesty: mass murder.

The only real question is whether our conservative neighbors will have the decency to honor their own repudiation of their own logic. Many will expect that, soon enough, the point will be forgotten, and conservatives will go back to arguing the very rhetoric they've disowned. And, yes, compared to history, there is just cause for that expectation. But we need to remind our neighbors, when it comes up again, that these rhetorical devices aren't valid, that they have already rejected such assertions, and that the only reason they're bothering us with that shit again is that they're being dishonest.

It only took a mass murder. And it's a small prize society wins, albeit one with tremendous implications.

So remind them of it the next time they dare insult people with those arguments.

Hold them accountable to what they have said. Remind them of the benefits they have enjoyed, and how we were willing to exempt them from decades worth of their own political arguments—how the very things they said were true of people aren't supposed to apply to them. And reiterate what bullshit they're pushing.​

We know, we know. Conservatives should be exempted from their own standards; it's the only fair way to do things.

And you agree with this. We get it. You've made that clear.

 

Nothing in there contradicts what I posted.

That kind of joke is not possible here - it requires a base assumption of reasonable perception, and around here no one can just assume you don't, for example, actually think Ms Kardashian was a Presidential candidate and likely gunman target.

The reactionary crowd here is quite sincere about some truly bizarre fantasy content - and trying to pretend this guy came from nowhere and targeted at random is going to breed more.

? You missed the last forty years of leftwing political discussion, activity, and effort, apparently.

You can find books about the history of the battle against the growing rightwing threat-engendering media behavior, with publication dates in the last century. Try the political battle over the Fairness Doctrine, wherein the rise of stations like Fox was predicted, for instance. They just lost, is all - they got beat by the corporate money.

 

@Tiassa

Wave credentials? I'm using Rush because you are making the claim that now the Republicans would have to change their rhetoric, you know, 'end the conservative lie' and I am showing you that it doesn't seem to be working.

Tiassa: And what you're missing here is that the Left has turned the Right's argument against them.For decades conservatives have been insisting on the kind of influences from media that they and their defenders now claim are impossible.

And yet it isn't working. At most it would mean that you both end up muzzled.

Tiassa: Ah, yes. Anything to blame the liberals.

No, no. Its true. Soon the both of your parties will so resemble each other in tactics and style if not content that the people will tire of them both. The 'lesser of two evils' will mean being short-changed twice.

Tiassa: There has been talk about right-wing rhetoric over the last couple years, including when the tax protester flew an airplane into a building. And, yes, conservatives felt there could be no possible connection, and that it was undignified to suggest one existed.

Maybe his connection was the Twin Towers and not conservatives. The NY Times reports that those who knew Joe Stacks said "he had a hang-up with the I.R.S. on account of them breaking him, taking his savings away” and 'a portrait emerged of Mr. Stack as a man pushed over the brink by retirement dreams deferred by a long series of financial setbacks.' Stacks, at the end of his letter which is long writes "I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed." http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100218-stack-suicide-letter.pdf

It doesn't sound partisan at all if you ask me, so how on earth do you connect all that with Rush and company? He says in his suicide note: "in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say." Doesn't sound as if he was happy with anyone from either party:shrug:

Regarding the political climate wouldn't it just be more efficient to come up with a better plan of action thus making ones party more favorable to the population? I mean they managed to do so in Obama's campaign though it seems the luster is beginning to wear some. Attacking the pundits isn't a vote winner, ground work is.

Tiassa: his time, the fact that the target was officially targeted by the right wing changes the dynamic somewhat. And the answer, as you have suggested repeatedly, is that observable reality doesn't apply—e.g., one must be an active adherent, subscriber, or participant in a movement in order to be influenced by it, and we already know that's not true.

That is still up for debate. Here is what is observable, I have yet to find one article that indicates that maps were actually assassination targets, on contrary it seems both parties used similar maps. Nor have I come across even one report where Loughner is to have acted based on those map. If anything it would seem that Fuller did make threats based on rhetoric from the Left that told him it was the fault of Tea Party members that he and others were shot. Now he's in a psych unit! Don't you feel responsible?

Tiassa: But we have seen what it takes for conservatives to abandon their own arguments.

What arguments have they abandoned?

Tiassa: More to the point, we now know what it takes to compel conservatives to repudiate their own dishonesty: mass murder.

They probably believe most of what they say and even if they don't, what evidence is there that they are being compelled to act any differently than they have in the past? If you say that there has already been prior killings due to Right Wing Rhetoric then why should this episode be any different? And if they did change their discourse would you even meet them half-way in yours? I doubt it. "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." WC

Which reminds me. You seem to think that the only reason why there is a disgruntled population leaning towards the Right is because of talk radio. Are you suggesting that they will refrain from leaning to the right without these pundits? That they will somehow trust Obama, think universal health care cool and agree that gay marriage is just? I think you are giving Rush and company too much credit. I think there are darker cultural reasons that go beyond talk radio and its pundits. America compared to other western nations has always been a conservative country. It has always been suspicious of liberal ideals. The only thing that Rush and company seem to do is magnify, if not distort, those underlying values.

Tiassa: Many will expect that, soon enough, the point will be forgotten, and conservatives will go back to arguing the very rhetoric they've disowned. And, yes, compared to history, there is just cause for that expectation. But we need to remind our neighbors, when it comes up again, that these rhetorical devices aren't valid, that they have already rejected such assertions, and that the only reason they're bothering us with that shit again is that they're being dishonest.

I think what is dishonest is expecting a political atmosphere to be honest when it takes billions of dollars from corporate lobbyists to run a campaign. Who pays for conservative talk radio anyway? Who are these people? They're not journalists nor political scholars they're just every day joe's turned celebrity, what the Kardashians are to entertainment these pundits are to politics. You will always have this cut-throat, what Hedges calls 'junk politics', at work until you advocate a public fund campaigning system that cuts out the lobbyists. Give politicians an equal amount of free radio time. Do not allow corporations to make commercials that attempt to sway congressional bills in their favor. Rush and company belong in town hall meetings where they can be challenged, not as a passive mouth piece on the radio. But someone is funding their radio time, and as the political wind changes so do corporate dollars. They fling money to the Left then the Right irrespective of each parties basic values. They will fling their money at all those who are eager to work on their behalf.

I don't believe for one moment that the feeling of dissatisfaction in the States stems from the pundits, they only take advantage of that dissatisfaction. If the Left were able to reach the average joe and speak to their needs then RW pundits would have a difficult time pretending to speak for them. At the end of the day if there are no jobs and people are losing their homes, their savings and there is no move to address this then Chomsky is right when he blames the Left for giving this disenfranchised population to the Right on a silver platter.

Tiassa: We know, we know. Conservatives should be exempted from their own standards; it's the only fair way to do things.And you agree with this. We get it. You've made that clear.

Oh please Tiassa save me the dramatics. You don't get to talk to me about standards when you called me a "murder sympathizer". If you did 'get me' as you say then you would know that all I have been saying is that your assertion that the Arizona shooting is a direct outcome of RW talk radio is groundless. I never once said that conservatives should be exempt from standards. What I told you is that BOTH parties have thrown standards to the wind. Neither of them have the moral high ground because they both lie and they have both sold out.

Question is would you be able to focus on the deceits and shortcomings of your own party and get them back up to snuff rather than sling arrows at your opposition and pretend as if they are all that's wrong in your nation and the political climate. You don't have political discourse in the US, all you have is black and white thinking and two parties to mirror them. I have to agree with Churchill, "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

 

An interesting BBC article on the division in politics after Arizona. It ends with: 'The shooting of Gabby Giffords has certainly put American politicians in a reflective mood. But that brief moment of bipartisan grief has done, it seems, little to bridge America's political chasm.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12198035

 

Maybe that's why Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center was on MSNBC very quickly blaming Ayn Rand and the idea that it's the "individual against the government"? Apparently not having a defined political affiliation will still get you a political affiliation, being either anarchist, libertarian, etc. Take your pick. Someone is to blame.

And then he went on to blame British "conspiracy theorist" David Icke, which he pronounced as "Icky" despite the fact that the man pronounces his own name as rhyming with "Ike".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxRbaKqeOaI&t=1m05s

From that clip's description:
True to form Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law center wastes no time in pointing the finger at "Right Wing Ideology" as the motive for the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Meanwhile Potok conveniently leaves out the fact that Jared Loughner listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books.

I saw a link recently that showed a breakdown of defense industry lobbying by political party. The Democrats came out on top for most of them, probably because they were until recently the majority party.
Ever wonder why war is so hard to stop? I wish I could find the link. I will post it as soon as I can recall where I saw it. However, in lieu of that, there is an article from 2008.
Obama outstrips McCain in defense-industry donations

The money only follows leadership, it seems. Not ideologies, either in theory or in practice. I think it is in practice where we see who has true principles.

This topic and all the bickering that goes with it seems to prove that.
We have a harmful dichotomy composed of two, and only two, major parties, and petty topics and surface dressing that both embody.

 

You're kidding, right?

You posted: No one here is claiming the guy was motivated by political ideology


From the OP: the arresting sheriff has said. He said, that the accused in unstable but motivated by right wing TV and radio

Arthur

 

Mrs. Lucysnow also asked a few pages back why is conservative media to blame, when we have a culture of violence.

We have an American culture that for the last decade or so has been taught to embrace the war on terror, which entails war in two different countries or perhaps you could even call them two separate theaters. There are also threats against Pakistan, as well as attacks on it. And then there's Iran.
I haven't seen anything meaningful from the Obamination administration on the anti-war front.

We have very realistic violent video games, some of which are themed on warfare.

We have a television culture obsessed with crime and violence. The endless number of detective and police dramas are evidence of that, and there are sometimes very peculiar and politically-biased themes to some of those episodes.

Also there was a smash hit show called "The Sopranos". It centers on a faction of the mafia as heroes/anti-heroes. It spanned 6 seasons. I only saw a few episodes, but one I remember was where the main character, Tony Soprano, drives a woman out into the countryside and murders her.

We have increasing pressure to clamp down on civil liberties in the homeland, coming from nothing less than the Department of Homeland Security. All because of the War on Terror. I don't see any of that changing under our supposed socialist and peace-lover, Obama.

If people want violence, there is violence aplenty in both the real and imagined media and culture.

I won't defend neo-cons for their warmongering, but the other side (apparently the ONLY other side?) doesn't seem to be doing much to stem that. Other than talking about it.

 

I agree with this post.

though it's a stretch to link this very sick young man to any one ideology
,I would also note that violent Political rhetoric is allowed a free pass in this country on many fronts from the media and political pundits.
In the recent past we can see some of the following discussed, refuted and supported openly:

Threats towards "enemy combatants and nations".
Calling for the assassination of Julian Asange.
Politically pointed portrayals of global catastrophe due to human advancement.
Support for horrifically violent late term abortion.
Support for horrifically violent enhanced interrogation techniques
GWB referred to as Hitler or equivalent.
Political domestic terrorism.
Portrayals of devastating conditions as result of unchecked capitalism.
Alleged power abuse by law enforcement.

Well, the list goes on and on so you get the picture.

Sadly ,in the context of history, politics and entertainment, violence is TOP SELLER,if you will.That's not going to change anytime soon. It's what stirs the soul and drives many to action. Many to stop it, others to continue it.
If this tragedy invites comprehensive discourse about WHY so many Americans fear the things that the Tea Party advocates are fighting for or against,
I, for one, welcome it. Let's talk about the 2nd amendment and all the rest of those sticky issues that get swept under the rug.

To paraphrase Lucy: "Today is no better or worse a day than yesterday,as the shooter was unattached."

But to his defense,what is largely missing in THIS particular discussion is ,as one poster mentioned, the quality of education and social/family support the gunman had. And why is it so easy in America to submerse yourself in violent material in the absence of aforementioned.

 

Don't ever lie and call yourself a liberal again, Lucy

That's a little bit different than what you wrote before. This version I can agree with. Like I said earlier, we have to hold them to it; they have publicly rejected their own longstanding argument. We must remind them when it comes up again, and not grant them any presumption of legitimacy about it.

Of course it isn't working. Liberals aren't a lockstep rank. We even see that in this thread. You, for instance, wave your liberal credentials at me while supporting conservative dishonesty.

But there is also a long-term outlook on this that liberals can achieve. We'll see what comes.

It already does. The question right now is essentially whether you want an annoying leak or an apocalyptic flood.

Still, though, you've revised the position a bit compared to your previous attack on liberals.

Perhaps. But we won't know because we're not supposed to have the discussion.

For instance, Mr. Stack wrote, "Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of GM executives, for a score of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?"

It's an interesting misrepresentation of the chronology of the bailouts, much like the Tea Party. And Mr. Stack, apparently, much like the Tea Party, would prefer a full-blown depression with twenty percent unemployment.

In the end, these would be interesting, enlightening, and even useful discussions to have, but you and your conservative neighbors—don't try waving your liberal badge at me—have fought to prevent such discussions from happening.

So here we find that typical conservative duplicity. You didn't want to discuss the question before, but now that you think it serves your point, you're happy to do the examination.

Let us delve into the issue. That's the only way to make something positive out of this tragedy. But we also need to appropriately file away some of the stupid arguments Tea Party defenders have raised, e.g.—

• "Each of us is only exposed to that part of popular culture that we allow into our lives." (Adoucette)

• "There is no evidence so far to say that he has had any ties to any group and no one knows what could have motivated him save what is being said by those who knew him which was that he wasn't particularly political but held a hodge-podge of quirky conspiracy theories that you can pin point to almost everywhere or nowhere." (Mrs.Lucysnow)

• "You mean its not over the edge to take an isolated event and then blame all of Republican demagoguery for its occurrence?" (Mrs.Lucysnow)​

The first two suggestions ignore psychology and observable reality about human behavior. The third pretends the latest in a string of violent, homegrown anti-government demonstrations is an "isolated event".

You want to do the objective examination? Great. Let's do it.

Maybe if you'd paid attention to my earlier posts, you wouldn't be asking the question. I don't think either of us wants me to reiterate that much text at once in this post.

You would think so, but it doesn't seem to work that way. For all Americans claim to despise attack adverts and negative campaigning, it wins votes. And, hell, as we learned from the Swift Boat issue in 2004, the attack can be completely false and totally debunked in public view, and people will still cling to it.

No, it's not. You can see this every day in the United States if you just open your eyes. People are influenced by, or make decisions according to, factors to which they do not actively describe.

Okay, here's the problem I have with that question: Either you're simply being dishonest and demanding that I reiterate several posts worth of text, or you're dishonest by responding to and denouncing posts you haven't read.

• #186—to Madanthonywayne
• #193—to Adoucette
• #218—to Mrs.Lucysnow
• #278—further discussion w/Madanthonywayne
• #628—a general question
• #661—general commentary
• #664—to Adoucette​

I'm sorry, but there are so many distortions in those two paragraphs, I don't know where to begin. So to take a couple of points that stand out:

• "They probably believe most of what they say and even if they don't, what evidence is there that they are being compelled to act any differently than they have in the past?" In theory, integrity. In practice, only if society chooses to hold them to their word.

• "If you say that there has already been prior killings due to Right Wing Rhetoric then why should this episode be any different?" Because we're not supposed to ask those questions. If we do (sniff) we're just exploiting (hiccup) a tragedy for cynical political ends (waaaaaah!). People tried to address the question before; it didn't get any traction in the cycle. Now that there's a stupid controversy—e.g., "It is unfair of you to try to hold us accountable under our own standards!"—surrounding a spectacular tragedy (a nine year old girl—waaaah!) it gets bumped up front and center.

• "And if they did change their discourse would you even meet them half-way in yours?" — You're relying on your own vicious presumptions, which is fine insofar as you're welcome to have whatever image of me you want. But it doesn't make for much of an argument.

• "You seem to think that the only reason why there is a disgruntled population leaning towards the Right is because of talk radio." — See note above. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to my posts.

• "Are you suggesting that they will refrain from leaning to the right without these pundits?" — You're kidding, right?

• "That they will somehow trust Obama, think universal health care cool and agree that gay marriage is just?" — Remind me, please: Am I supposed to be taking you seriously at this point, or are you just writing bad satire?​

It's an interesting proposition which I could certainly give some sympathetic consideration if it weren't flung out as a desperate excuse for a distraction.

The bottom line is that it's voters that need to be convinced. Except, since the facts don't reflect well on conservatives, it's unfair, and even morally wrong to even talk about it.

Okay. That's well and fine. But how does this tie back to anything relevant to the discussion?

Which is why all the leftists are lining up behind the conservative pundits, right? Actually, it's an interesting assertion that could foster its own thread, because the reasons why it appears to work that way are both myriad and fascinating.

Get over yourself, Lucy. You need to discard observable reality; you argue in response to straw men of your own making; you apparently have no idea what is actually in my posts. Can the self-righteous bit.

Look at your adjectives. You're arguing a straw man.

It's a necessary element of your conservative advocacy, and shows through in straw-men arguments like, "The conservatives don't own the mass murder, even the press concedes this ...."

This whole argument about rhetoric and responsibility that you think is so irresponsible, horrible, dishonest, and so forth, has been standard conservative rhetoric for decades. Now that they're in its spotlight, they're trying to duck the issue, and you're aiding and abetting that effort.

In truth, I find the whole, "I never said that" argument problematic. I mean, it's kind of impolite to think that people are so stupid that they think they can get away with it. Sure, they might never have said it explicitly.

For instance, once upon a time—several years ago, at least—I told a creationist to go test the laws of nature by finding a tall building and jumping off. That was back in the days when we could say stuff like that, so it didn't really come up in terms of, "How rude to tell someone to kill himself." But if it had, could I really have said, "I never told him to kill himself."

Sure, I never said it explicitly.

I wouldn't make the "I never said that" argument in that case except in a context of deep and determined sarcasm.

Funny thing is that when you get shades of gray, or even a palette of colors, you reject it in favor of the black and white.

 

The Lie

The Lie:

"You mean its not over the edge to take an isolated event and then blame all of Republican demagoguery for its occurrence?"

(Mrs.Lucysnow; boldface accent added)​

Tom Tommorrow reminds:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

January 18, 2011​

____________________

Notes:

Tomorrow, Tom. "The shooting in Arizona? An isolated incident!" This Modern World. January 18, 2011. Salon.com. January 18, 2011. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/01/18/this_modern_world/index.html

 

That has nothing to do with political ideology (the ideology spread by the major media rightyranters is vague and confused, hard to ferret out, and not really an issue unless someone is impolite enough to name it: it's called fascism).

And it isn't what the OP said.

And it isn't what the sheriff said.

And the sheriff isn't here.

 

@Tiassa

Tiassa: You, for instance, wave your liberal credentials at me while supporting conservative dishonesty.

LOL! Where and how? Where do you see me supporting dishonesty? I think its dishonest to blame a party for violence it didn't inspire. I think its dishonest to pretend one party is the cause of all ill-health within a nation. My only argument has been that Loughner is being used by some against the Republicans without any evidence. So what you are saying is only true if you believe that pointing out this 'observable truth' is a sign of support.

Tiassa: The question right now is essentially whether you want an annoying leak or an apocalyptic flood.Still, though, you've revised the position a bit compared to your previous attack on liberals.

Where have I attacked liberals? Show me. How do you differentiate between a leak or an apocalyptic flood when there is so little change in policy since Bush? If the Republicans opened the gates its the Democrats who have failed to build a dam. No re-instituting corpus habeas, Gitmo remains open, slow drip drip of trails against detainees, a continuation and surge in the war, continued bailouts started by Bush, an escalation of the deficit, a continuation of the patriot act. I don't see how you can ignore all of that. So please show me how my position has been revised? I would like to see the posts because my position is as it was in the beginning, that its wrong to blame Loughner's violence on the Republicans.

Tiassa: It's an interesting misrepresentation of the chronology of the bailouts, much like the Tea Party. And Mr. Stack, apparently, much like the Tea Party, would prefer a full-blown depression with twenty percent unemployment.

Who said Stacks was giving a chronology? All he did was give a list of grievances, grievances also held by those on the Left. Compare what Hedges has to say to what Stack felt on bailouts:

"The passing of the $850-billion bailout pulled the plug on the New Deal. The Great Society is now gasping for air, mortally wounded, coughing up blood. It will not recover. It was murdered by the Democratic Party.We are on our own. And don’t expect any help from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who lobbied hard for the bill and voted for it. Ignore their rhetoric. Look coldly at the ballots they cast against us. We, as citizens, have only a handful of representatives left in Washington, most of whom were left sputtering in rage and frustration on the House floor. The sad irony is that some of them were Republican."

Then you have Kucinich piping in:

“This was the largest single act of class warfare in the modern history of this country,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who led the fight in the House against the bailout, told me by phone from Cleveland. “It is a direct attack on the American people’s ability to be able to stabilize their homes and their neighborhoods. This single vote will define the careers of everyone. We are back to taxation without representation, to markets that are openly rigged.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_dennis_kucinich_on_the_democrats_bailout_betrayal/

Is it that both Hedges and Kucinich have smoked the yayo along with Stacks? Look even Naomi Klein was smoking the yayo:

"The first order of business—and one that cannot wait until inauguration—must be halting the robbery-in-progress known as the “economic bailout.” I have spent the past month examining the loopholes and conflicts of interest embedded in the U.S. Treasury Department’s plans. The results of that research can be found in a just published feature article in Rolling Stone, The Bailout Profiteers, as well as my most recent Nation column, Bush’s Final Pillage."

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/11/real-change-depends-stopping-bailout-profiteers

So there are plenty on the progressive side who disagree with your assessment of the benefits of the bailouts but to keep on topic you cannot pretend to know how Stacks derived his opinion when the opinion criss-crosses from Right to Left. Again you are pretending to have a window into the man's soul and failing to see that there are plenty of people who are not affiliated or aligned with the Tea Party movement who share this belief that the bailouts were a bad idea and left many feeling disenfranchised.

Maybe you should snatch Kleins liberal credentials right out of her hand since it is only you who knows a real liberal, right Tiassa?

Tiassa: In the end, these would be interesting, enlightening, and even useful discussions to have, but you and your conservative neighbors—don't try waving your liberal badge at me—have fought to prevent such discussions from happening.

Bullocks! Stop whining like a infant. A discussion is difficult with you when you're playing high and mighty as if you stand on a shit load of moral certitude when its just a pile of shit. You want a discussion? Then have one but you prefer to just be snide and pretend as if the whole issue hinges on bloody Tea Party support. I mean I thought it was only Bush who was pushing 'you're either with us or against us' bullshit.

But let's at least try. Here you point out two statements I made and say they pretend the latest in a string of violent, homegrown anti-government demonstrations are "isolated event".

Well excuse me but each event is isolated in that each event occurs for different reasons. You still have yet to show how either Loughner or Stacks, both who committed acts for different reasons are connected to Tea Party or Republican rhetoric. You make the statement that Stacks is aligned to Tea Party beliefs but as I have already shown you there are other's who are not even remotely on the Right who agree with his assessment. If his assessment is wrong he doesn't stand alone in that. You want to isolate these events as the outcome of conservative ideology alone and this isn't true, especially when you can't connect it to them to begin with. If you believe that homegrown anti-government violence is not isolated from society at large then you have to take a look at society at large and not just the Tea Party or the Republicans.

Has it occurred to you that maybe there is anti-government activity because the government itself has made decisions that has it completely off course?

McVeigh believed he had a right to cause collateral damage in the FBI building because the FBI had wrongfully attacked its own citizens in Waco (not to mention Ruby Ridge). His last words were taken from Invictus but his last words upon conviction in court were

"If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He said, "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." "That's all I have"

Here is the rest of what Judge Brandeis had to say:

"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

Brandies himself was a people's judge, against big corporations, against mass consumerism and against monopolies. He's hardly what you would call an inspiration for Right Wing nutters. McVeigh wasn't crazy, he wasn't mentally unstable he just made a decision, a decision that was ironic when you consider the violence government metes out in its wars over and over and over again and call 'collateral damage'. The use of Brandies quote shows he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

Loughner is mentally ill period. Loughner it seems would have committed a violent act at school if he had not acted against Gifford. Loughner didn't commit an act of violence because he was lashing out against government.

Stacks was lashing out against government but unlike McVeigh he did so because he was financially stressed to the max, he wasn't declaring war against the government. As Chomsky said of him Stacks did everything right and still he couldn't survive, couldn't retire, couldn't preserve his savings. So yes it is up to debate whether there is a direct influence on Republican rhetoric and the decisions of these individuals. The Republicans don't want a coup, they don't want civil war or a complete revamping of the system, like their Democrat brother's they just want to win the next bloody election! What they want is the status quo which is from what I can tell also what the Democrats want. Neither would advocate election reform, neither would do anything that would take away their wealth and power. Neither would bite the hand that feeds them by turning on corporate lobbyists and certainly neither of them would decrease government control mechanisms and unconstitutional increase in power which is why you still have a patriot act.

So when you say "People are influenced by, or make decisions according to "factors to which they do not actively describe." I say bullocks!!! I think with the exception of Loughner they were making decisions to which they ascribed to. McVeigh stood behind his act and Stacks decided that he was going down anyway so why not take the IRS with him. He then commits an act against the government the same way Bin Laden did on 9/11.

What I see is that you live in a culture that has become immune to violence. Its so entrenched in your history that you cannot help glorify it. Look at some of your heros, you have Jesse James (he would kill people in the back), Bonnie and Clyde (over 20,000 people turned out for their funeral). Hell when John Gotti beat a conviction there were hundreds of people outside the court cheering. You people love it! Your hollywood heros are gun toters. They blow shit up when they're pissed and they take the law into their own hands. Patriots go to war against government and the bad guys, they're for the people, they are revolutionaries a la colonial minutemen. That's the historical ethos that's been bequeathed to you but instead you have decided that its an invention of the Republican party anytime someone feels moved to violently protest or attack the government.


Tiassa: Either you're simply being dishonest and demanding that I reiterate several posts worth of text, or you're dishonest by responding to and denouncing posts you haven't read.

I ask you what arguments they have abandoned and then you leave seven links, the one with my name is a post written by you and its longer than Methuselah's life. Stop mucking about and obfuscating the issue and simply state what arguments I have abandoned. Make a long story short and summarize.

Tiassa: Because we're not supposed to ask those questions. If we do (sniff) we're just exploiting (hiccup) a tragedy for cynical political ends (waaaaaah!). People tried to address the question before; it didn't get any traction in the cycle. Now that there's a stupid controversy—e.g., "It is unfair of you to try to hold us accountable under our own standards!"—surrounding a spectacular tragedy (a nine year old girl—waaaah!) it gets bumped up front and center.

Hmmm. Interesting, except that YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RIGHT WING RADIO RHETORIC!! Get it now? Did that sink in yet? You are still implying that its the Republicans fault that the shooting happened but STILL fail to show any proof. You did the same with Stacks when its obvious, even from the NY Times article, that his actions are not based on anything the Republicans have said or done. Why is it that if there are so many incidents that have the republican footprint on it that you choose examples that do not show said footprints? They simply don't apply. This is why your argument doesn't work which is why
'Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.' You can look at the link here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Tiassa: The bottom line is that it's voters that need to be convinced. Except, since the facts don't reflect well on conservatives, it's unfair, and even morally wrong to even talk about it.

Really? how many Democrat candidates are advocating for election reform?

Tiassa: Which is why all the leftists are lining up behind the conservative pundits, right?

Read what I wrote Tiassa. I said "At the end of the day if there are no jobs and people are losing their homes, their savings and there is no move to address this then Chomsky is right when he blames the Left for giving this disenfranchised population to the Right on a silver platter." Progressives and Liberals are not heading towards the Right, as Hedges keeps reminding everyone "the left have no where to go". But I wasn't referring to those who consider themselves of the Left, such a notion in politics is part of the problem. I said if the Left had reached out in a meaningful way to the population who's largely working & middle class and are feeling insecure as they see foreclosures, job losses, unemployment and mounting debt then perhaps they wouldn't have to flock to the Right to see their anger assuaged. I mean how are you going to appease them or meet their needs when you are not even willing to admit that your own party is also responsible. How are you going to appease them when people like Joe for example keep saying 'Everything is getting better, everything is fine'. You say the bailouts are necessary but do you also agree that those who committed FRAUD should also have to go to jail? I mean why does Obama keep saying we have to move forward? There should have been a trial for malfeasance after what happened like there was in the savings and loan disaster (which paled by comparison) but just like he did with the Bush administration he simply said 'we should move forward'. What's to appease anyone's sense of justice? Instead the people's tax dollars were used to bailout the wealthy.

Tiassa: Now that they're in its spotlight, they're trying to duck the issue, and you're aiding and abetting that effort.

LOL! Hahahaha! In the spotlight? MOST AMERICANS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SHOOTING HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HEATED POLITICAL RHETORIC! Just look at the poll. Its like your in some trench somewhere and you haven't realized that the war is over and all your troops have gone home. I don't have to aid or abet anyone. I will stand up against an untruth no matter who its being pinned on.

Tiassa: For instance, once upon a time—several years ago, at least—I told a creationist to go test the laws of nature by finding a tall building and jumping off. That was back in the days when we could say stuff like that, so it didn't really come up in terms of, "How rude to tell someone to kill himself." But if it had, could I really have said, "I never told him to kill himself."


Oh geez! If he did Tiassa then it wouldn't be your fault that's for sure but again where is it that any republican candidate inferred that Giffords should be murdered? You must really fear Pailin and company. I mean really. For all of your mocking of them you really fear them. Like Joe you think that everyone is sitting around listening to them, that there is a large army of ditto-heads ready to come and get you. Ha!

Tiassa: Funny thing is that when you get shades of gray, or even a palette of colors, you reject it in favor of the black and white.

You're color blind so don't talk to me about it.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Humor for the day.

You make some good points. God speed.


BTW, Was not Joe Stack a registered Democrat? Let me guess, he gave in to the Dark Side (Right-wing)?

 

No shit.

This thread is a microcosm of stupid allegations, guilt by associations, caustic defenses and the general airing of longheld griefs. It would help if both "sides" didn't try to demonize one another, but I've ceased to believe that's possible here -- or in RL -- ages ago.

Politics increasingly seems as an exercise in which everyone simply wants to reassert their same ideological prejudices in whatever new "context" emerges from the media's issue/attention cycle. It's pretty boring. Like this thread, really...

PS - You're wasting time with Tiassa. Everyone is dishonest or a liar or some kind of "phobe" or engaging in an "ism" if they don't agree with him. And he can call people thus and completely get away with it.