Has anyone noted any toning down of rhetoric?

[charver]

Typing as an outsider in all this, and, taking as red that "the political rhetoric" didn't actually cause this mentalist to shoot that woman, would anyone say that the "debate" which passes for discussion on US TV (television not transvestites) stations, radio and, places like here (where mentalist run free in their natural habitat) is at all healthy?

Lacking a constitutional right to bear arms, we tend to stab our MP's with knives or hack at them with samurai swords rather than taking the "easy way out" by shooting them with legally available weaponry and ammunition. You've got to have standards.

 

[Canceled2]

We do not know if the constant, relentless, violent rhetoric contributed to a mentally troubled individual snapping. Remember, he hasn't spoken. At least as far as I'm aware.

Do you know something he's said that we do not?

He HAS spoken, at lengths, PRIOR to his nutty acts-and there is absolutely no evidence that he acted based on any rhetoric but that which took place in his nutty little head-most of which had to do with a conspiracy about grammar; math; and monetary units.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

WOW, you are one dishonest fuck. You are connecting two separate statements and making up your OWN context.

Beck DID say: You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

Let me translate: YOU are going to have to shoot THEM in the head.

There is no way to deny it. You are really a partisan hack...

who is the "you're" bfgrn....guess what....it is the communist who want to shoot beck and those who don't support their movement....you have to cut out all the context to make up your own "you're"

but go ahead and lie and claim otherwise

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We do not know if the constant, relentless, violent rhetoric contributed to a mentally troubled individual snapping. Remember, he hasn't spoken. At least as far as I'm aware.

Do you know something he's said that we do not?

Ahh.. so you admit that you DON'T really know why he did it? Well, it seems to me, the LEFT has already decided why he did it, and they are blaming it on rhetoric, specifically, rhetoric from the right. Except your liberal president... I never in a million years, would have guessed that I would be siding with Obama against you fuckwits, that's pretty damn amazing in of itself. But the post I made, was OBAMA's words, not mine.

Now let me ask your idiot ass a question here... Let's say Loughner comes out and claims he did it because of waffles and maple syrup? Does that mean I can't ever again go to IHOP and order waffles with maple syrup? Is that where we have devolved as a society now? Some crazy nut does something, and we have to react by banning whatever he claims was his insane reasoning? Because that is what the fuck it sounds like you are saying here.

I posted the president's statement on the matter, and asked you a goddamn question, and you never did answer it. Care to tell us whether you agree or disagree with Obama? He says rhetoric played no role, he says emphatically, it DID NOT! He goes on to say, we should honor those who died by not exploiting this tragedy to point fingers of blame, and we should encourage civil and honest dialogue... is that what you consider yourself to be doing now? And why not? Do you disagree with Obama on that too?

 

[apple0154]

He HAS spoken, at lengths, PRIOR to his nutty acts-and there is absolutely no evidence that he acted based on any rhetoric but that which took place in his nutty little head-most of which had to do with a conspiracy about grammar; math; and monetary units.

Have you ever been in the company of two people arguing? Did you notice how it affected your mood? Or have you experienced two children arguing? Did you notice the difference between how you felt then and how you felt when hearing two children talking and laughing?

Many "normal", run-of-the-mill people become agitated over political discussions. Political discussions do that. My point is today's discussions consist of violent metaphors and it can set off people with mental disabilities.

Going back to what I said earlier about hearing two people argue, if you have a problem or something happened to spoil your day and you're already in a bad mood, do you not notice your temper is short?

No one is saying the guy was a normal individual. It's obvious he has a problem. The point is the way the political rhetoric is ratcheted up today it's not good for anyone, sane or insane.

Talk radio is not about discussing. It's about being angry and just as listening to two kids arguing, even though they may be arguing about something that is of no concern to us, does affect our mood.

If such affects us normal folks (you and me?) imagine how it may affect a mentally unstable person.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No one is saying the guy was a normal individual. It's obvious he has a problem. The point is the way the political rhetoric is ratcheted up today it's not good for anyone, sane or insane.

Being that this particular nut case was rambling incoherently about the "unjust illegal wars" and shit, which is predominately a left wing rhetorical point, are you willing to accept any responsibility for his actions? Yes or no... you can answer when you answer my previous question... I can wait.

 

[Canceled2]

Have you ever been in the company of two people arguing? Did you notice how it affected your mood? Or have you experienced two children arguing? Did you notice the difference between how you felt then and how you felt when hearing two children talking and laughing?

Many "normal", run-of-the-mill people become agitated over political discussions. Political discussions do that. My point is today's discussions consist of violent metaphors and it can set off people with mental disabilities.

Going back to what I said earlier about hearing two people argue, if you have a problem or something happened to spoil your day and you're already in a bad mood, do you not notice your temper is short?

No one is saying the guy was a normal individual. It's obvious he has a problem. The point is the way the political rhetoric is ratcheted up today it's not good for anyone, sane or insane.

Talk radio is not about discussing. It's about being angry and just as listening to two kids arguing, even though they may be arguing about something that is of no concern to us, does affect our mood.

If such affects us normal folks (you and me?) imagine how it may affect a mentally unstable person.

If anything apple, according to those who knew/know him, he was politically left and so by your logic should have acted on the leftist political rhetoric and targeted a conservative not a liberal.

That you still wish to ride this disgusting bandwagon is more then disapointing.

The guy is a disturbed individual.

 

[apple0154]

Being that this particular nut case was rambling incoherently about the "unjust illegal wars" and shit, which is predominately a left wing rhetorical point, are you willing to accept any responsibility for his actions? Yes or no... you can answer when you answer my previous question... I can wait.

I wrote, "The point is the way the political rhetoric is ratcheted up today it's not good for anyone, sane or insane."

I did not specify Right rhetoric or Left rhetoric.

As to your previous question I did answer it in msg 58 by writing,

Come on now, Dix. People were going on about the Gifford's shooting and saying we couldn't determine if it was political because the shooter wasn't talking. Now we have a shooter who is talking and saying the political rhetoric did incite him and you're questioning whether it's true.

 

[apple0154]

If anything apple, according to those who knew/know him, he was politically left and so by your logic should have acted on the leftist political rhetoric and targeted a conservative not a liberal.

That you still wish to ride this disgusting bandwagon is more then disapointing.

The guy is a disturbed individual.

He attacked a political gathering so we know it had to do with politics. If any group of people would have sufficed he could have chosen any movie theater once the movie ended.

Also, I fail to see how associating his actions to political discourse in any way diminishes what he did or takes anything away from the victims.

We know how politics inflame people. That's why there are dozens of Police at every political demonstration and we almost always hear of some incident having taken place. To use this event to lesson violent, political rhetoric is to honor the victims. Any good that can come out of this tragedy is an honor to the victims.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Considering there are a greater number of posters here who are Righties I see you're assuming the majority of them are mentally disturbed.

Have you considered becoming a spokesperson for the Republican Party?

no, simply pointing out that a majority of people here don't like your rhetoric.....and I think that crosses political boundaries......if you disagree just run through the responses to your posts on any abortion thread......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Also, I fail to see how associating his actions to political discourse in any way diminishes what he did or takes anything away from the victims.

it doesn't....but falsely attributing his actions to political discourse isn't intended to take anything away from the victims....just the opposite, it's intended to use the victims to discredit political discourse

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I wrote, "The point is the way the political rhetoric is ratcheted up today it's not good for anyone, sane or insane."

I did not specify Right rhetoric or Left rhetoric.

As to your previous question I did answer it in msg 58 by writing,

So you believe all the years of ratcheted up Bush Hate could have played a significant role in Loughner's actions? That is big of you to admit here. I still don't agree with you, and neither does President Obama. We say it wasn't because of rhetoric, it was because crazy people do things we can't understand because they are crazy. We think, if something like this causes us to reflect on our rhetoric, it should be done out of a sense of honor to the memory of those who died, not because our rhetoric is to blame in any way for this.

Clearly, when we examine the history of political rhetoric and vitriol, we can find evidence of it throughout our history, and the level of vitriol has been considerably worse than today. During the days of Adams and Jefferson, for example, Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite, cities would burn and your wives and daughters raped, if Jefferson were elected... it was bitter and hateful in tone, even by today's standards. They never sought to limit free speech or stifle political discourse. There are accounts of presidential candidates challenging each other to duels, they never entertained the notion of banning guns because of it. All along the way, we've realized that limiting our freedoms is not the solution. It's still not the answer.

 

[Damocles]

Typing as an outsider in all this, and, taking as red that "the political rhetoric" didn't actually cause this mentalist to shoot that woman, would anyone say that the "debate" which passes for discussion on US TV (television not transvestites) stations, radio and, places like here (where mentalist run free in their natural habitat) is at all healthy?

Lacking a constitutional right to bear arms, we tend to stab our MP's with knives or hack at them with samurai swords rather than taking the "easy way out" by shooting them with legally available weaponry and ammunition. You've got to have standards.

Most of the time I find that rhetoric about the same as what you hear in your Parliament.

 

[apple0154]

no, simply pointing out that a majority of people here don't like your rhetoric.....and I think that crosses political boundaries......if you disagree just run through the responses to your posts on any abortion thread......

It's understandable when it comes to abortion. Declaring something a human being precludes making exceptions to willfully kill it when it is innocent. And for those who believe God creates all life killing it because of who it's father is (incest) or how it came into being (rape) causes Cognitive Dissonance.

Of course, there are those who proclaim exceptions be allowed in order to appease their opponents knowing the natural course of events will result in abortion being forbidden in all circumstances as there is no way to logically make exceptions to willfully kill anything considered an innocent human being.

As to the topic at hand Byron Williams has stated, unequivocally, that Glenn Beck's comments led to him snapping. Right or wrong, sane or insane does not change the fact Beck's comments were a contributing factor.

Furthermore, as I previously stated, political rhetoric has been shown to incite "normal" people. Couple that with the current trying times many are experiencing and it's just asking for trouble.

 

[Canceled2]

He attacked a political gathering so we know it had to do with politics. If any group of people would have sufficed he could have chosen any movie theater once the movie ended.

Also, I fail to see how associating his actions to political discourse in any way diminishes what he did or takes anything away from the victims.

We know how politics inflame people. That's why there are dozens of Police at every political demonstration and we almost always hear of some incident having taken place. To use this event to lesson violent, political rhetoric is to honor the victims. Any good that can come out of this tragedy is an honor to the victims.

The point you keep missing (though it has been made numerous times) is that it could have been any group of people; it could have been because the lamp post told him to do it---There is NO evidence to suggest it was motivated by anything other then voices in his head about grammar; math; and monetary units-somehow he decided that killing all those people was part of his demented solution.

 

[Based Chad]

It's understandable when it comes to abortion. Declaring something a human being precludes making exceptions to willfully kill it when it is innocent. And for those who believe God creates all life killing it because of who it's father is (incest) or how it came into being (rape) causes Cognitive Dissonance.

Of course, there are those who proclaim exceptions be allowed in order to appease their opponents knowing the natural course of events will result in abortion being forbidden in all circumstances as there is no way to logically make exceptions to willfully kill anything considered an innocent human being.

As to the topic at hand Byron Williams has stated, unequivocally, that Glenn Beck's comments led to him snapping. Right or wrong, sane or insane does not change the fact Beck's comments were a contributing factor.

Furthermore, as I previously stated, political rhetoric has been shown to incite "normal" people. Couple that with the current trying times many are experiencing and it's just asking for trouble.

Dehumanizing all babies just to avoid cognitive dissonance for baby murderers is wrong.

 

[apple0154]

The point you keep missing (though it has been made numerous times) is that it could have been any group of people; it could have been because the lamp post told him to do it---There is NO evidence to suggest it was motivated by anything other then voices in his head about grammar; math; and monetary units-somehow he decided that killing all those people was part of his demented solution.

But it wasn't any group. It was a group he had had a previous connection with. Let's remember he kept the letter he received from Gifford's people a few years back.

After watching a partial interview with the lady who brought the child to see Giffords she said he walked up to Giffords and shot her first. Whatever his reasoning politics played a role.

 

[apple0154]

Dehumanizing all babies just to avoid cognitive dissonance for baby murderers is wrong.

Hey, AssHat. Welcome to the thread! I was wondering where you were.

Any input on the topic?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But it wasn't any group. It was a group he had had a previous connection with. Let's remember he kept the letter he received from Gifford's people a few years back.

After watching a partial interview with the lady who brought the child to see Giffords she said he walked up to Giffords and shot her first. Whatever his reasoning politics played a role.

And it has already been revealed, his obsession with Gabby Giffords predates both the Tea Party movement, and Sarah Palin in the public lexicon, by at least two years. The argument that Palin or the Tea Party had any role whatsoever, in what motivated this individual, is baseless and unfounded. His own postings and videos reveal an obsession with the idea 9/11 was in "inside job" ....tell me, when have you heard Rush, Hannity, Palin, or anyone else on the right, articulate this lunacy? He railed on and on about the "illegal wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, when has anyone from the right articulated this point? So, if we are to look at the specific rhetoric which may have been a motivation, it's clear it wasn't something from the right, it was more associated with the Anti-Bush, Anti-War, rhetoric which came mostly from the left. Again, I don't think politics played a role, and I don't think that is an argument you really want to make here.

Can your idiot ass just not see the absurdity of this? What do you think we should do... ban everything and anything that might ever provoke a crazy person? Where does that logically end? Can we even reasonably expect to accomplish such a thing? It's kind of like saying, since we have drunk drivers killing people with cars, we should ban cars and driving! Why can't we just hold the crazy people accountable for their crazy actions, and stop trying to BLAME it on something else?

 

[apple0154]

And it has already been revealed, his obsession with Gabby Giffords predates both the Tea Party movement, and Sarah Palin in the public lexicon, by at least two years. The argument that Palin or the Tea Party had any role whatsoever, in what motivated this individual, is baseless and unfounded. His own postings and videos reveal an obsession with the idea 9/11 was in "inside job" ....tell me, when have you heard Rush, Hannity, Palin, or anyone else on the right, articulate this lunacy? He railed on and on about the "illegal wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, when has anyone from the right articulated this point? So, if we are to look at the specific rhetoric which may have been a motivation, it's clear it wasn't something from the right, it was more associated with the Anti-Bush, Anti-War, rhetoric which came mostly from the left. Again, I don't think politics played a role, and I don't think that is an argument you really want to make here.

Can your idiot ass just not see the absurdity of this? What do you think we should do... ban everything and anything that might ever provoke a crazy person? Where does that logically end? Can we even reasonably expect to accomplish such a thing? It's kind of like saying, since we have drunk drivers killing people with cars, we should ban cars and driving! Why can't we just hold the crazy people accountable for their crazy actions, and stop trying to BLAME it on something else?

Going with your analogy regarding drunks and cars something was done. Breathalyzers. Spot checks. Also, there are places where pub owners can be held libel when continuing to serve a drunk. Why should they be held responsible for another person's actions?

The suggestion is to lower the political rhetoric across the board. If it's applied to both parties do you have a problem? If you do then your argument regarding blaming the Right falls away.

As for "Can we even reasonably expect to accomplish such a thing?", of course we can. Did MSM broadcast Cheney's "F@ck-you" to Patrick Leahy of Vermont?

From political parties instructing their members to tone it down to MSM refusing to cover politicians who insist on speaking such crap it wouldn't take long before the tone changed.