Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event

[quote name='Clak']Link really is like a forum STD. He shows up every now and then, irritates the hell out of you, then goes away only to come back again later when you least expect it.

At least Bob and Knoell don't just show up, vomit on all of us, then run away.[/QUOTE]

All this from showing evidence that the guy was a lunatic.

I can't help that you want to whine and piss your pants over the truth.
 
A great piece on slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2
Excerpt:
The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. [I would add bitten off fingers and self-inflicted mock attacks] With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.


Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."


Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.
-Jack Shafer
 
[quote name='AdultLink']It's the ramblings of someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to follow a political avenue, esp. since he doesn't have the mental capacity to UNDERSTAND DATE AND TIME.

I'm just a voice of reason. Sorry that reason doesn't agree with your blind hate of the right.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...voice of reason? Blind hate of the right? Project much?:roll:
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']A great piece on slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2
Excerpt:
The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. [I would add bitten off fingers and self-inflicted mock attacks] With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.


Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."


Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']A great piece on slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2
Excerpt:
The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. [I would add bitten off fingers and self-inflicted mock attacks] With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.


Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."


Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.
-Jack Shafer[/QUOTE]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking people to tone down the violent imagery currently being used in politics. I can't stand it when people turn something as simple as a request to be more civil into "THEY'RE TRYING TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH!!!!11111".Just because we have the right do something doesn't make it a good fucking idea to do so. People already censor themselves constantly, all we want is an end to bullshit like "2nd amendment remedies". We're asking for it, not trying to force anyone, it's a simple request.This isn't necessarily aimed at you either, but at the authors of the items you posted.

I just can't believe that politics still comes down to bullshit like this. It's enough to make me not even want to participate, not if I'm going to have to put up with the veiled threats and fear mongering we've had to deal with for the last decade or so.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...voice of reason? Blind hate of the right? Project much?:roll:[/QUOTE]
:rofl: If he's the voice of reason then I'm the Queen of Scotl....wait.
 
[quote name='Clak']There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking people to tone down the violent imagery currently being used in politics. I can't stand it when people turn something as simple as a request to be more civil into "THEY'RE TRYING TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH!!!!11111".Just because we have the right do something doesn't make it a good fucking idea to do so. People already censor themselves constantly, all we want is an end to bullshit like "2nd amendment remedies". We're asking for it, not trying to force anyone, it's a simple request.This isn't necessarily aimed at you either, but at the authors of the items you posted.

I just can't believe that politics still comes down to bullshit like this. It's enough to make me not even want to participate, not if I'm going to have to put up with the veiled threats and fear mongering we've had to deal with for the last decade or so.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing wrong with asking people to tone things down--we have free speech to do so.

However, I'm 100% opposed to in anyway requiring or pressuring people to tone it down as there's few things I defend more strongly than free speech.

Take away free speech, and this country could go choke on a dick and die as our level of freedoms is about the only true selling point of living here vs many other places IMO.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And how is this relevant you might ask? Well when someone says bulleye without using other descriptors, it just means an object of focus. When someone uses a scope sight, "reload," promotes firearm use, and agrees with second amendment remedies, it's a little different. It ceases to be abstract. Dog-whistles...people do hear them.[/QUOTE]

True. Palin crossed the line. I don't know if she broke any laws, but she completely deserves to be shunned by civilized society.
 
[quote name='camoor']True. Palin crossed the line. I don't know if she broke any laws, but she completely deserves to be shunned by civilized society.[/QUOTE]

And that's exactly how hateful speech and other things should be dealt with by society.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Take away free speech, and this country could go choke on a dick and die as our level of freedoms is about the only true selling point of living here vs many other places IMO.[/QUOTE]
Violent, sexist hate-speech! I will shout you down when you attempt to speak in public. No one will hear your ideas! :D

Let the chilling effect begin!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's nothing wrong with asking people to tone things down--we have free speech to do so.

However, I'm 100% opposed to in anyway requiring or pressuring people to tone it down as there's few things I defend more strongly than free speech.

Take away free speech, and this country could go choke on a dick and die as our level of freedoms is about the only true selling point of living here vs many other places IMO.[/QUOTE]
And that's all I'm doing, asking for even the smallest modicum of civility in politics. Having the freedom to do something means being responsible with it, and I think there has been a lot of irresponsibility lately. You can't go around screaming BOMB!!! on a plane, and everyone should understand why that is, that it isn't an issue of censorship.
 
[quote name='Clak']And that's all I'm doing, asking for even the smallest modicum of civility in politics. Having the freedom to do something means being responsible with it, and I think there has been a lot of irresponsibility lately. You can't go around screaming BOMB!!! on a plane, and everyone should understand why that is, that it isn't an issue of censorship.[/QUOTE]

Screaming bomb or fire etc. is very different as that runs an immediate risk of starting a riot, panic etc. There's a clear and immediate risk to public safety.

Asking people to tone down rhetoric in politics for fear of inciting nutjobs to violence isn't the same, and is more similar to asking game developers and movie studios to tone down violent content for fear of inciting school shootings.

Now I don't like all this rhetoric, and have pretty much stopped paying attention to politics because of it. That and the realization that nothing will ever change as the country is too populated by undereducated, blue collar rural shit kickers.

But I still feel strongly that people have a right to say whatever they want--with public safety exceptions for things like yelling Bomb in an airport etc. And those of us that don't like it have the freedom to speak against it and try to shame such people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's nothing wrong with asking people to tone things down--we have free speech to do so.

However, I'm 100% opposed to in anyway requiring or pressuring people to tone it down as there's few things I defend more strongly than free speech.

Take away free speech, and this country could go choke on a dick and die as our level of freedoms is about the only true selling point of living here vs many other places IMO.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. People seem to prefer social safety nets over guns in most developed countries. Can't say the same about us.

edit: Btw, I disagree with them having to tone it down because this is a byproduct of something else. Sure, speech should be free, but they're not treated equally. This shit-stirring vitriol is given more provenance than more reasonable voices. This is NOT a coincidence. We shouldn't be fostering an environment that promotes vitriolic speech in the first place.

When money equals "free speech," speech ceases to be free.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But nobody is talking about taking away anyone's rights, you keep saying that, like that's what I'm talking about. Asking someone to tone down rhetoric is not forcing them to give up their rights. You aren't the type to make that kind of leap from request, to the stripping of someone's rights. There is a line between the expression of your rights and just being belligerent.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I disagree. People seem to prefer social safety nets over guns in most developed countries. Can't say the same about us.[/QUOTE]
I'd even take it further and say People seem to prefer social safety nets over most individual freedoms in most 1st world countries.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I disagree. People seem to prefer social safety nets over guns in most developed countries. Can't say the same about us.[/QUOTE]

That's kind of my point as I prefer social saftey nets over guns. Take away our free speech etc., and I'd finally get the stones to leave because I like most part of Europe and some other places better than US on most other factors.

[quote name='h3llbring3r']I'd even take it further and say People seem to prefer social safety nets over most individual freedoms in most 1st world countries.[/QUOTE]

Exactly....to some extent. Which is why I say that our individual freedoms here are the single selling point that keeps me here.


[quote name='Clak']But nobody is talking about taking away anyone's rights, you keep saying that, like that's what I'm talking about. Asking someone to tone down rhetoric is not forcing them to give up their rights. You aren't the type to make that kind of leap from request, to the stripping of someone's rights. There is a line between the expression of your rights and just being belligerent.[/QUOTE]

Sure. I'm just saying that people have a right to be belligerent as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

And I personally don't like asking people to tone things down when I don't agree with the content or tone of the message as I feel like I'm trying to infringe on their free speech rights.

I'm man enough to just ignore speech I don't like, and not associate with people who's beliefs and attitudes piss me off. I don't feel a need to ask them to change, I just don't associate with them--or in the case of the talking heads--don't watch or listen to their shows, read their columns etc.

I mean we're not talking people outright encouraging violence. We're talking people expressing strong negative opinions that may sometimes get latched onto by whackos.

And hell, I'd be hypocritical to tell them to stop when I have just as negative opinion of bible thumping, white trash, conservative rural America as the Palin's et al. do of "latte sipping intellectual elitists."
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I'd even take it further and say People seem to prefer social safety nets over most individual freedoms in most 1st world countries.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious, name some of these countries
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm curious, name some of these countries[/QUOTE]
Most EU countries and to a lessor degree, here.
Its been quantified in polling as well, but it's definitely skewed by your political perception- one man's loss of liberty is another man's increased security, "human right," social safety net.
 
Some examples would include lower expectation of privacy in some countries (Sweden tracks a crazy amount of data on citizens--medical history etc.--as they have to provide their ID number for damn near everything), more police power etc. etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Some examples would include lower expectation of privacy in some countries (Sweden tracks a crazy amount of data on citizens--medical history etc.--as they have to provide their ID number for damn near everything), more police power etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
Sweden is NOT a good example dude. They're the happiest country on the planet...LOLZ. Who cares if medical history is stored. It makes for an efficient way to dispense OMG!!UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!11OMGBBQLOLZWTF111!! And you can also have guns up the wazoo if you want. Lower expectation of "privacy" is not really a freedom. We don't have that much privacy in the US to begin with.

Also, have you seen their prisons or know what their judicial system is like? It makes us look like goddamned barbarians.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Asking people to tone down rhetoric in politics for fear of inciting nutjobs to violence isn't the same, and is more similar to asking game developers and movie studios to tone down violent content for fear of inciting school shootings.[/QUOTE]

Not really. One people take seriously and one people know is created/entertainment.

I was trying to find the clip of that old lady who called into Beck's radio show scared to death that Obama's death panels were going to put her down and Beck actually had to step up and tell her that they weren't going to kill her...but this one is good too

(and if you are :roll: due to the video title, keep in mind that video was posted in July 28, 2010...months before this happened)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppC00XhVy-Q

The fact is, Beck and others are on TV/radio. People trust them and when those people hear things like the country is being destroyed/these liberals are trying to take everything from you/The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, over and over and over again (by locking themselves in an echo chamber)...it's the truth to them, not just an entertainment show or rhetoric.

Salon actually wrote a great article that everybody here should read.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric/index.html
 
So people jump to the conclusion that they should murder people based on the innuendo of Beck and Palin, but completely ignore when President Obama tells his supporters to bring a gun to a knife fight... Got it.
 
I do agree that people take things like Beck's show etc. more serious than movies and games etc.

But the fact that remains that the only people who are going to act violently after such things are the same types tipped over the edge by violent people. Aka people who were already deranged.

So I still think pinning this in anyway on these loser talking heads is incredibly lame. It was a fucked up person who committed a violent act. Nothing new to human society. It's always happened, and will always happen, regardless of what's in the media--news or fictional.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']So people jump to the conclusion that they should murder people based on the innuendo of Beck and Palin, but completely ignore when President Obama tells his supporters to bring a gun to a knife fight... Got it.[/QUOTE]

Didn't actually read everything I or others posted again...Got it.

[quote name='Sporadic IN THE SAME fuckING POST YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT']Salon actually wrote a great article that everybody here should read.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric/index.html[/QUOTE]

THE SALON ARTICLE YOU DIDN'T READ MINUS THE VIDEOS AND HYPERLINKS said:
Whether Jared Loughner is a far-left nihilist or a right-wing racist or -- as he most likely is -- some weird politically incoherent amalgamation of extremist beliefs tinged with paranoia, he wasn't driven to murder by angry campaign slogans. Steve Kornacki's right -- Loughner was not a Gadsden Flag-wielding Tea Partyer incited to violence by the Twitter messages of Sarah Palin. But he is a product of the culture, and there's a reason he chose to attack a Democratic congresswoman. There's a reason why his paranoia was directed at an elected official, the closest representative of what he saw as in illegitimate government. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language suffusing every single domestic political debate.

The Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. It makes a sad sort of sense that a bunch of comfortable white reactionaries would dress up their childish tantrums with such grandiose language, because "desperately protecting your privilege in the face of what appears to be the demise of the empire" sounds much less inspiring than "defeating tyranny."

As the Republican Party has become more homogeneous, more regional and more reactionary, it has tended to make up for its growing demographic shortcomings by making sure its supporters are more motivated and energized -- and the most effective way to energize them has been to make sure they're constantly enraged.

When the GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare reform from passing, their strategy -- and it almost worked -- was to scare Democratic elected officials. That was the point of telling everyone to shout themselves hoarse at the town halls: to terrify House members. Convince them that their constituents were incensed. If some LaRouchites or other unclassifiable political entities got into the mix, fine -- more voices for the choir of rage. What was formerly a sort of uneasy tolerance of the extremists inched closer to open acceptance. Roger Ailes allows Glenn Beck to run amok spreading classic Bircher paranoia. Matt Drudge links to conspiracy-mad broadcaster Alex Jones. Everyone in the party had to pretend to be cool with idiot extremist Oath Keeper Sharron Angle, because the craziness the right wing whipped up led its primary voters to select her over the safe party hack who would've handily defeated Harry Reid. There are connections -- both direct and spiritual -- between the far-right Patriot movements that flourished in the '90s and some of the more out there elements of the Tea Parties.

When she's not talking about God, Sarah Palin's talking about guns. Practically all her rhetoric is blood-soaked, and proficiency with firearms is a key element of her persona. Her cult can claim her stupid map wasn't supposed to show rifle sights aimed at vulnerable Democratic districts, but anyone who's ever seen a violent movie -- which is to say, Americans of all ages -- knows what cross hairs look like. "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD" isn't one unfortunate incident of over-the-top language, it's her mantra. "Going Rogue" begins with that line, attributed to her father.

Everyone uses battle-related language in politics, of course. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," candidate Barack Obama said in 2008. Rahm Emanuel's comically exaggerated speech is the stuff of (probably embellished) legend. It's perfectly legitimate, if also often counterproductive and stupid, to pretend politics is blood sport.

I'd also say that while you can argue the wisdom of either, there's a difference between using the imagery of politics as street fight and employing revolutionary rhetoric. And when you combine standard-issue violent political language with the idea -- stated and reiterated by nearly every prominent right-wing politician and media figure since Obama took office -- that the opponent is not simply wrong, but has illegitimately seized power, and is illegally exercising that power, the inevitable question raised is, "What do we do to stop them?" The correct answer is supposed to be "vote Republican and keep watching Fox," of course, but a good midterm for the GOP hasn't dethroned the socialist usurper-in-chief.

It's not strictly that language tinged with violent imagery is dangerous, or that heated denunciations of the motivations of your political opponents are out of line, or even that America's pervasive gun fetishization is to blame (though our gun culture is insane and bizarre to every single other developed nation in the world) for violent crimes. But when elites don't just condone but participate in the combination of that violent imagery with the idea that the government represents an existential threat -- that representatives of the government are domestic enemies, that your liberty and even your physical safety are in danger -- the idea of political violence is normalized. Terrorizing Congress members at town halls and "we surround you" and head-stomping and death threats and all the other bad craziness just becomes "the way we do politics in America."

The crazies are listening to the same media that the rest of us are. Charles Alan Wilson, the man arrested last year for threatening the life of Sen. Patty Murray, used the same language as Glenn Beck in his insane voice mails to Murray's office and borrowed Sarah Palin's death panels meme. (He also had a concealed weapons permit and carried a loaded .38 special.) When everyone's hoisting guns and shouting "tyranny" and playing at being a revolutionary, there will be a couple of people who don't see the wink.

Was Erick Erickson on CNN this weekend, to deliver his brilliant political analysis? I imagine he would prefer not to be reminded of the time he got himself all worked up about new regulations on dishwasher detergent, and wrote this stirring call to arms:

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?

At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems.

If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. But it is going to have to get back to "leave me the hell alone" style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.

Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.

This, again, was in response to a mildly inconvenient ban on certain types of dishwasher detergent that are polluting fresh groundwater.

Will Joyce Kaufman be on WFTL tomorrow morning repeating her comments about what to do when voting doesn't produce the desired result?

There's Dick Morris on Fox just throwing this out there: Maybe "those crazies in Montana who say, 'we're gonna kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over'" are "beginning to have a case."

There's Michele Bachmann calling a climate-change bill "tyranny":

There's also Michele Bachmann more explicitly calling for a revolution, invoking Jefferson's famous "tree of liberty" line. (That appearance, on Hannity, was as insane as Bachmann ever gets, babbling about a world currency, warning that the "link" of "our very freedom" was about to "break.")

Even the goofiest of the sideshow midterm primary candidates presented themselves almost uniformly as not just the spiritual descendants of the Founders, but the would-be leaders of a new revolution. Alabama's Rick Barber is just sitting at a bar, chatting with Washington about how the IRS is the modern-day equivalent of George III:

Democrat Joe Manchin didn't feel he could win his Senate race unless he filmed himself literally shooting liberal ideals to death, with a gun:

Sharron Angle implicitly called for violence if Republicans couldn't win traditional elections. Some idiot from Glenn Beck's show says violent overthrow of the government is "on the table." Beck himself constantly presents the specter of vast cataclysmic violence as inevitable -- just around the corner, unless we turn back from liberalism soon.

This stuff infects the whole culture. When this is the bed you make, you can't be too shocked when monsters hide under it.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']So people jump to the conclusion that they should murder people based on the innuendo of Beck and Palin, but completely ignore when President Obama tells his supporters to bring a gun to a knife fight... Got it.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ. Anti-war protesters are actually PRO WAR. Got it.

This is exactly the kind of idiocy that comes from the right. Good job brother.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But the fact that remains that the only people who are going to act violently after such things are the same types tipped over the edge by violent people. Aka people who were already deranged.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before there is zero reason to believe the US is immune to this. There will be more incidents.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Like I said before there is zero reason to believe the US is immune to this. There will be more incidents.[/QUOTE]

Of course. And there will be more incidents even if the talking heads tone down their rhetoric.

There are a lot of not jobs out there. The only difference is maybe we see more targeting of politicians etc. with how divisive politics are in today's world. But even then, that is nothing new. Think of the presidents who've been assassinated etc. Or attacks on abortion clinics etc. The US (and no country) has ever been, nor will ever be, immune to these types of things.

I just don't see the rhetoric having that much to do with it. Violence and aggression is just part of human nature, and deranged people have always tended to act out by lashing out at people different than them on political, religious or other belief systems/lifestyles.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's kind of my point as I prefer social saftey nets over guns. Take away our free speech etc., and I'd finally get the stones to leave because I like most part of Europe and some other places better than US on most other factors.



Exactly....to some extent. Which is why I say that our individual freedoms here are the single selling point that keeps me here.




Sure. I'm just saying that people have a right to be belligerent as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

And I personally don't like asking people to tone things down when I don't agree with the content or tone of the message as I feel like I'm trying to infringe on their free speech rights.

I'm man enough to just ignore speech I don't like, and not associate with people who's beliefs and attitudes piss me off. I don't feel a need to ask them to change, I just don't associate with them--or in the case of the talking heads--don't watch or listen to their shows, read their columns etc.

I mean we're not talking people outright encouraging violence. We're talking people expressing strong negative opinions that may sometimes get latched onto by whackos.

And hell, I'd be hypocritical to tell them to stop when I have just as negative opinion of bible thumping, white trash, conservative rural America as the Palin's et al. do of "latte sipping intellectual elitists."[/QUOTE]
How is "2nd amendment remedies" not encouraging violence? How is there a non-violent way to interpret that?
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']So people jump to the conclusion that they should murder people based on the innuendo of Beck and Palin, but completely ignore when President Obama tells his supporters to bring a gun to a knife fight... Got it.[/QUOTE]
I could go over it again, or ignore you.

Yeah I'm lazy so....
 
[quote name='Clak']How is "2nd amendment remedies" not encouraging violence? How is there a non-violent way to interpret that?[/QUOTE]

There is clearly some comments that have been made (that I've just now read over the past hour as I haven't really followed this that closely up till now) that probably crossed some lines.

If all you mean by asking people to tone it is to avoid those kind of comments, then I have less objections to what your saying.

But otherwise, if people want to call Obama a socialist, talk about death panels and other stupid shit to try to rile people up, they should be free to do so. Same if people want to call Palin a moronic cunt etc.

If things are getting to the point of directly trying to incite violence, then yeah you're getting near that "yelling bomb on an airplane" line.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Like I said before there is zero reason to believe the US is immune to this. There will be more incidents.[/QUOTE]
I once thought that we were complacent, but it seems like ths kind of thing is spreading if only in the outskirts for now.

But lets look at Europe for a moment: there are people violently rioting when there's a hike in tuition or cut in social services. What do we have in the US? People getting trampled on black friday. What passes for political consciousness in this country makes Idiocracy look like a treatise on quantum mechanics.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There is clearly some comments that have been made (that I've just now read over the past hour as I haven't really followed this that closely up till now) that probably crossed some lines.

If all you mean by asking people to tone it is to avoid those kind of comments, then I have less objections to what your saying.

But otherwise, if people want to call Obama a socialist, talk about death panels and other stupid shit to try to rile people up, they should be free to do so. Same if people want to call Palin a moronic cunt etc.

If things are getting to the point of directly trying to incite violence, then yeah you're getting near that "yelling bomb on an airplane" line.[/QUOTE]That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I don't care about the ignorant socialist anti-christ blah blah blah comments, that borders on funny sometimes. The stuff I'm talking about is exactly what you quoted. That and the gun sights on posters, talk about "reloading" anything that is some thinly veiled hint at violence. Stuff like that can't be interpreted in a non-violent way.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I once thought that we were complacent, but it seems like ths kind of thing is spreading if only in the outskirts for now.

But lets look at Europe for a moment: there are people violently rioting when there's a hike in tuition or cut in social services. What do we have in the US? People getting trampled on black friday. What passes for political consciousness in this country makes Idiocracy look like a treatise on quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE]
That always disappoints me. In most European countries if they riot over something, it's something important. Not saying they should get violent, but at least it's an important issue. Here like you said, we don't see those kinds of crowds unless it's a free concert or black friday. Here in the U.S. tuition fees go up every year and we just take it on the cheek, it happens in Britain and they get fucking pissed, why don't we? Are we that used to getting rammed up the ass that it doesn't hurt any more?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I once thought that we were complacent, but it seems like ths kind of thing is spreading if only in the outskirts for now.

But lets look at Europe for a moment: there are people violently rioting when there's a hike in tuition or cut in social services. What do we have in the US? People getting trampled on black friday. What passes for political consciousness in this country makes Idiocracy look like a treatise on quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE]

It's not just political consciousness. Our populace is just moronic in general. People don't read, don't consume the arts, don't make effort to develop their intellect etc. for shit these days.

The average joe slaves away in some menial job to make ends meet, spends free time with their spouse and kids and on mindless entertainment. All that's fine, and we all spend time on those types of things--but life is pretty empty if you're not also trying to be continually improve yourself, stay informed and grow intellectually.

Yet to many in this country--especially the Palin's and their ilk--it's suddenly a bad thing to be an intellectual. :roll:

That's the real problem that leads to this kind of tragedy. Not posters with gun sites and other dumbass things like that. Those are just a tiny bit more fuel on the fire. Those kind of statements probably shouldn't happen, but there no where near the root cause of the problem.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I once thought that we were complacent, but it seems like ths kind of thing is spreading if only in the outskirts for now.

But lets look at Europe for a moment: there are people violently rioting when there's a hike in tuition or cut in social services. What do we have in the US? People getting trampled on black friday. What passes for political consciousness in this country makes Idiocracy look like a treatise on quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE]

There are violent (and fatal) riots and fights in Europe over soccer games. That's just as silly as violence on Black Friday.

Clak:

Angle was referencing Kennedy's "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable," but is a terrible public speaker. She wasn't prepared to be in the spotlight or debate issues under that level of scrutiny; we all saw the results.
 
[quote name='Clak']The stuff I'm talking about is exactly what you quoted. That and the gun sights on posters, talk about "reloading" anything that is some thinly veiled hint at violence. Stuff like that can't be interpreted in a non-violent way.[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of a completely unrelated piece of a Saul Williams' song.

God versus fear
Man versus fear

Fear not
I purse my lips and kiss like a glock
Violence is a metaphor for victory's plot
Change is inevitable, but our death is not

[quote name='Clak']That always disappoints me. In most European countries if they riot over something, it's something important. Not saying they should get violent, but at least it's an important issue. Here like you said, we don't see those kinds of crowds unless it's a free concert or black friday. Here in the U.S. tuition fees go up every year and we just take it on the cheek, it happens in Britain and they get fucking pissed, why don't we? Are we that used to getting rammed up the ass that it doesn't hurt any more?[/QUOTE]

Basically. That and it doesn't really matter if we get out to protest. Protests are ignored. Riots, immediately, get whatever message was behind it labeled as something extreme/wrong instead of opening a line of discourse.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not just political consciousness. Our populace is just moronic in general. People don't read, don't consume the arts, don't make effort to develop their intellect etc. for shit these days.

The average joe slaves away in some menial job to make ends meet, spends free time with their spouse and kids and on mindless entertainment. All that's fine, and we all spend time on those types of things--but life is pretty empty if you're not also trying to be continually improve yourself, stay informed and grow intellectually.[/QUOTE]

isnt this how things have been... forever?


edit: after thinking about this for a minute, im really just baiting & being a smart ass. dont take the post too seriously.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']isnt this how things have been... forever?


edit: after thinking about this for a minute, im really just baiting & being a smart ass. dont take the post too seriously.[/QUOTE]

:D

But seriously, it has gotten much worse. I mean I can't recall until recently that major politicians were literally insulting intellectualism etc.

Not to sound like some old fogey wishing for the good old days, but society has gotten much more low brow with most people's consumption of the "arts" now being little more than trash TV, action movies etc. Combine that with a declining education system, and it's just a toxic mix as far as any dreams of having a cultured and educated society go.

People should just at least make some effort to mix in some classic literature, non-fiction, trips to museums or art galleries etc. in with their enjoyment of action movies etc. There's nothing wrong with low-brow entertainment etc. The problem comes when people only consume that. Or in the case of politics--when they only watch talking head shows and don't read any newspapers etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I simply wish people had more responsibility with their words. I don't think people consider the power that words and images can have. Which is kind of crazy when you consider all the campaign posters and other advertisement we're exposed to, but that all slides under the collective conciseness. All of that has some kind of impact though, and it can be positive or negative. but it's out there and it's purpose is to impact people. So even gun sights on a poster may seem stupid (and it is) that's having an impact on someone out there.

Again, it isn't about forcing censorship, just about people considering the impact of what they say and do.
 
[quote name='Clak']That always disappoints me. In most European countries if they riot over something, it's something important. Not saying they should get violent, but at least it's an important issue. Here like you said, we don't see those kinds of crowds unless it's a free concert or black friday. Here in the U.S. tuition fees go up every year and we just take it on the cheek, it happens in Britain and they get fucking pissed, why don't we? Are we that used to getting rammed up the ass that it doesn't hurt any more?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say this is true. When the UC system raised tuition last year there were protests. UC Berkley and LA stand out. Hell even UC Davis rushed a freeway to stop traffic, rushed buildings, and generally raised a little hell to the point there were choppers flying overhead for a few days.
 
Yeah, there were protests in my neck of the woods when tuition increases were announced last year as well.

And as someone else posted, they have soccer riots etc. in Europe too. No place is free of idiots.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']:D

But seriously, it has gotten much worse. I mean I can't recall until recently that major politicians were literally insulting intellectualism etc.

Not to sound like some old fogey wishing for the good old days, but society has gotten much more low brow with most people's consumption of the "arts" now being little more than trash TV, action movies etc. Combine that with a declining education system, and it's just a toxic mix as far as any dreams of having a cultured and educated society go.

People should just at least make some effort to mix in some classic literature, non-fiction, trips to museums or art galleries etc. in with their enjoyment of action movies etc. There's nothing wrong with low-brow entertainment etc. The problem comes when people only consume that. Or in the case of politics--when they only watch talking head shows and don't read any newspapers etc.[/QUOTE]

i dont think the arts were as readily available in the past as you think they were. but i also dont think that this has any relevance to the shooting. the killer, for all his mental instability, seemed to be pretty familiar with things like literature (take a look at his favorite books). but like i said, i was being a smart ass.


[quote name='cindersphere']I wouldn't say this is true. When the UC system raised tuition last year there were protests. UC Berkley and LA stand out. Hell even UC Davis rushed a freeway to stop traffic, rushed buildings, and generally raised a little hell to the point there were choppers flying overhead for a few days.[/QUOTE]

jerry brown just announced big cuts to the UC system. we'll see if my alma mater protests again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']jerry brown just announced big cuts to the UC system. we'll see if my alma mater protests again.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just read about this. I really hope they don't raise tuition until I get out of Davis. Hopefully no tuition increase until after June.:lol: I wonder what the may revision will look like.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Yeah, I just read about this. I really hope they don't raise tuition until I get out of Davis. Hopefully no tuition increase until after June.:lol: I wonder what the may revision will look like.[/QUOTE]

i got out just in time. when i graduated from UCD, the annual tuition fees were just over $8000. for 2010-2011 (just looked them up) they are over $13,000. ouch.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I wouldn't say this is true. When the UC system raised tuition last year there were protests. UC Berkley and LA stand out. Hell even UC Davis rushed a freeway to stop traffic, rushed buildings, and generally raised a little hell to the point there were choppers flying overhead for a few days.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's just my area then? Tuition to state schools here have gone up every year for the last few years, but no one seems too pissed off about it.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i got out just in time. when i graduated from UCD, the annual tuition fees were just over $8000. for 2010-2011 (just looked them up) they are over $13,000. ouch.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe it was ever $8000. Western Kentucky is about $4500 per semester, so around $9000 a year.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i got out just in time. when i graduated from UCD, the annual tuition fees were just over $8000. for 2010-2011 (just looked them up) they are over $13,000. ouch.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it is a pain. Lucky me my efc is zero (which is only because I have no more living parents) so 75 percent of my tuition was paid for by the state and grants.

[quote name='Clak']I can't believe it was ever $8000. Western Kentucky is about $4500 per semester, so around $9000 a year.[/QUOTE]

Fees for the year at davis are up to about 13 grand a year.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Yeah it is a pain. Lucky me my efc is zero (which is only because I have no more living parents) so 75 percent of my tuition was paid for by the state and grants.



Fees for the year at davis are up to about 13 grand a year.[/QUOTE]

my EFC wasnt zero, but it was pretty low. i got grants each quarter, but i still managed to rack up a lot of student loans while i was there.
 
bread's done
Back
Top