Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Media figures have always been irresponsible. Do you remember the "fictional" assassination of Bush book that was circulated through the media? Or Bush-Hitler signs/comments that led to crazies at rallie openly calling for his assassination?

Palin and Beck are downright tame in comparison to the stuff that went on under Bush.

Man, Biden looks YOUNG in this picture.

 

[Clevinger]

A) Relatively is the term used
B) That list is utter shit. Sections of it is nothing but things Beck has said or Heller working his way to the Supreme Court.

Yes, ignore all the incidents because there are quotes from media figures as well. All that fucking fisticuffs, huh.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Is it just me or is this reminiscent of the neocons arguments for Iraq? "I'm not SAYING that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, we just had all those people die in NY and now we think Saddam might be looking at WMDs..." seriously now. You're desperately trying to conflate different things. What if the federal judge died in their sleep? They'd still be lying in a coffin and it would STILL have just exactly as much to do with Jared Loughner as those hundreds of death threats.

lolwow. I never claimed they had anythingn to do with each other nor did I say we should legislate/censor/invade Arizona because of it. I'm saying that it should be toned down regardless since it is wrong to begin with and if this helps push public opinion on the issue then that does nothing but good.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not only is there no evidence to point towards a right-wing leaning, the (slim) evidence that exists points towards a left-wing leaning. The left-wing media got an immediate hard-on after the shooting and drew a premature and quite possibly wrong link to Palin, Beck, and Co. Not that a fascination with these figures would matter given that the current rhetoric is no worse than that under Bush, what with fictional-assassination books defended in the media and rampant Bush-Hitler hyperbole pretty much everywhere. People's memory of these things is shockingly short-lived. This didn't begin with Obama.

It's pretty disgusting how quickly people have tried to politicize this event, gleefully pointing to Palin and her "crosshair" remark simply to (wrongly) claim they were right all along.

It's truly disgusting how those awful left-wingers try to politicize this tragedy.

Media figures have always been irresponsible. Do you remember the "fictional" assassination of Bush book that was circulated through the media? Or Bush-Hitler signs/comments that led to crazies at rallies openly calling for his assassination?

Are you talking about that British play (not book)? I believe that was a "what would happen if" kind of literary exercise, not a "Bush should die" manifesto.

 

[Clevinger]

Media figures have always been irresponsible. Do you remember the "fictional" assassination of Bush book that was circulated through the media? Or Bush-Hitler signs/comments that led to crazies at rallies openly calling for his assassination?


Palin and Beck are downright tame in comparison to the stuff that went on under Bush.

This is really the worst argument. Saying "your side did it, too" - whether the two are in fact are equal or not, or, as you say, worse - is not a defense. It does not excuse what's happening now.

 

[Chichikov]

Is it just me or is this reminiscent of the neocons arguments for Iraq? "I'm not SAYING that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, we just had all those people die in NY and now we think Saddam might be looking at WMDs..." seriously now. You're desperately trying to conflate different things. What if the federal judge died in their sleep? They'd still be lying in a coffin and it would STILL have just exactly as much to do with Jared Loughner as those hundreds of death threats.

So is your argument that they should not tone down their rhetoric because Saddam was not connected to 9/11?

What?

(I really don't understand what you're trying to say here).

 

[DrForester]

A .gif that represented the progress this thread has made.

 

[Retrocide]

Or....how about both sides cut out the rhetoric. Right now we are in an endless loop of seeing which side is more hateful then the other....I'm tired of it.

 

[Gaborn]

So is your argument that they should not tone down their rhetoric because Saddam was not connected to 9/11?

What?

No, what I'm saying is that the argument for toning down the rhetoric should not depend on an entirely separate event. If Giffords was in a car accident would that be an argument to tone down the political rhetoric? I don't think so.

 

[nyong]

This is really the worst argument. Saying "your side did it, too" - whether the two are in fact are equal or not, or, as you say, worse - is not a defense. It does not excuse what's happening now.

I'm not excusing it. But people seem to be pretending that the rhetoric has reached new and dangerous heights with Palin and Beck. It hasn't.

Are you talking about that British play (not book)? I believe that was a "what would happen if" kind of literary exercise, not a "Bush should die" manifesto.

Nope, that was a different one. I'm talking about "Checkpoint"

 

[richiek]

This is really the worst argument. Saying "your side did it, too" - whether the two are in fact are equal or not, or, as you say, worse - is not a defense. It does not excuse what's happening now.

Also, the left didn't have a 24 hour news network egging on protesters during the Bush administration like the Tea Party does during the Obama administration.

 

[WickedAngel]

No, what I'm saying is that the argument for toning down the rhetoric should not depend on an entirely separate event. If Giffords was in a car accident would that be an argument to tone down the political rhetoric? I don't think so.

The odds of a politician being murdered by a non-relative for a reason other than their profession can't be anything short of astronomical. One would have to be willfully ignorant to not see how the incredibly dangerous rhetoric could be a contributing factor in setting a person like this into motion or validating them in some way (Even at a subconscious level).

People are going to speculate. If you don't like that, you likely shouldn't be on a message board in the first place.

This type of rhetoric has been criticized since it began so it didn't require "an entirely separate event".

 

[Gaborn]

The odds of a politician being murdered for a reason than their profession can't be anything short of astronomical. One would have to be willfully ignorant to not see how the incredibly dangerous rhetoric could be a contributing factor in setting a person like this into motion or validating them in some way (Even at a subconscious level).

People are going to speculate. If you don't like that, you likely shouldn't be on a message board in the first place.

We aren't talking about a theoretical event though. We're not asking about random politician x. We're talking about Gabrielle Giffords being shot by Jared Lee Loughner. This is a situation we already know enough about it to say it's more than probably not political.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I'm not excusing it. But people seem to be pretending that the rhetoric has reached new and dangerous heights with Palin and Beck. It hasn't.

WHO GIVES A FUCK

The point is that it needs to stop not 'which side is worse?!'

If the question is 'is it wrong to use this tragedy to help bring an end to violent speech in political discourse even if it's unrelated?' I feel the answer is Nope! Who are you defending? Beck? Olbermann? Fox? MSNBC? Loughner? Do you imagine that Giffords would be upset to hear her attempted assassination brought about an era of civility and polite disagreement? Honestly I'd love to know.

 

[WickedAngel]

We aren't talking about a theoretical event though. We're not asking about random politician x. We're talking about Gabrielle Giffords being shot by Jared Lee Loughner. This is a situation we already know enough about it to say it's more than probably not political.

And what piece of information has led you to that conclusion?

 

[Chichikov]

No, what I'm saying is that the argument for toning down the rhetoric should not depend on an entirely separate event. If Giffords was in a car accident would that be an argument to tone down the political rhetoric? I don't think so.

I never understood that type of logic.
If we need to tone down the rhetoric of the political discourse (and I think we do), that shooting didn't make it less pressing.
I don't get those weird appeals to fairness.

 

[ViperVisor]

current rhetoric is no worse than that under Bush,

Not true.

And as has been stated when you split the hairs; the complaints, minus the flaming bag of shit style some used, against Bush had merit. Iraq War is the obvious example. Obama is causing the Right to catapult incredible hate due to what, Trying to get more Americans on health insurance?

 

[Stumpokapow]

We aren't talking about a theoretical event though. We're not asking about random politician x. We're talking about Gabrielle Giffords being shot by Jared Lee Loughner. This is a situation we already know enough about it to say it's more than probably not political.

That's incorrect; we know enough about it to say it's more than probably not partisan. It was absolutely political; she was not shot in a home robbery or robbed at random. Based on what we know, she was shot because she was a congresswoman and because he felt slighted by her and outraged at "the man" in general. That's political, it's just the political ravings of an insane and disturbed individual, not a coherent partisan ideologue.

 

[Gaborn]

And what piece of information has led you to that conclusion?

This mother jones interview.

Chichikov - I'm not saying it's LESS of an argument, it's simply irrelevant. Either the rhetoric should be toned down, or it should not be toned down, but this event shouldn't be a REASON in and of itself to tone it down because it apparently was not dependent on the rhetoric.

Stump - I suppose that's a fair point. It seems like he had a PERSONAL issue with Giffords though, not a broader POLITICAL issue. If it was random politician X in control of his district he may or may not have felt the same way, it seems like his issue with Giffords was HER, not her ideology though.

 

[polyh3dron]

nyong, do you really want to go down this road....

 

[WickedAngel]

This mother jones interview.

Chichikov - I'm not saying it's LESS of an argument, it's simply irrelevant. Either the rhetoric should be toned down, or it should not be toned down, but this event shouldn't be a REASON in and of itself to tone it down because it apparently was not dependent on the rhetoric.

Stump - I suppose that's a fair point. It seems like he had a PERSONAL issue with Giffords though, not a broader POLITICAL issue. If it was random politician X in control of his district he may or may not have felt the same way, it seems like his issue with Giffords was HER, not her ideology though.

Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says.

How does that lead you to conclude that this is anything but political? She didn't sufficiently answer a question about governance that he asked her.

Do you believe this woman would have been shot by this man had she not been a politician?

 

[Chichikov]

Chichikov - I'm not saying it's LESS of an argument, it's simply irrelevant. Either the rhetoric should be toned down, or it should not be toned down, but this event shouldn't be a REASON in and of itself to tone it down because it apparently was not dependent on the rhetoric.

Wait, you're saying that the issue of violence in our political discourse is less relevant now?
You're saying we should focus on it less than we did last week?

Are you making an academic theoretical point?

 

[nyong]

Not true.

You're right, if you mean that it was worse under Bush. Calling Obama a socialist sort of pales in comparison to calling Bush Hitler.

And as has been stated when you split the hairs; the complaints, minus the flaming bag of shit style some used, against Bush had merit. Iraq War is the obvious example. Obama is causing the Right to catapult incredible hate due to what, Trying to get more Americans on health insurance?

So what? The Iraq War was a huge mistake, but not for the media-driven oil conspiracy garbage that led to widespread "No Blood for Oil" crazies out in full-force nationwide. Who's been winning the oil bids? China? Not to mention directly led to the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, which is worse (IMO) than the Obama-as-secret-Muslim theory.

And Obama has carried on Bush's policies--including the ones people hated Bush for, like the Patriot Act--and even added to them. There are legitimate concerns with nationalizing healthcare, but this issue doesn't even begin to touch on most people's problems with Obama. In many ways, especially on civil liberties, he's even worse than Bush.

 

[jred2k]

Sorry if its already been addressed in this thread, but if it was really politically motivated, why wouldn't Loughner shoot her repeatedly and make sure shes dead? Someone who opens fire on a crowd, including a child, seems more like a misguided lunatic rather than someone trying to serve a higher purpose. That is, unless, he only opened fire on the crowd in an attempt to flee. I haven't seen any articles detailing the events chronologically so I'm just asking.

Either way its pretty sickening that political debate is overshadowing the fact that a 9-year-old girl was shot to death. I guess that really shows how focused one side being right and another side being wrong the media has become.

 

[Gaborn]

How does that lead you to conclude that this is anything but political? She didn't sufficiently answer a question about governance that he asked her.

Do you believe this woman would have been shot by this man had she not been a politician?

I don't know, he seems schizophrenic so I guess it's possible, but considering his apparent paranoia about authority figures probably not. But I guess Stump's distinction is valuable, she may have been (in part) shot because she's a politician, but it had absolutely nothing to do with her views on political issues as a Dem or even in general, it was his personal disagreement with her over a total non issue. The rhetoric being more or less tense than it is now would not have, I think, made this shooting more or less likely because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what that rhetoric is concerned with.

Chichikov - where did I say the issue of violence in political rhetoric IS less relevant? I said that this case should not be held responsible for the level of the rhetoric because there is no indication this case was influenced by that rhetoric. That's it. It's a side issue, it'd be like blaming a man who killed his wife for the insurance money on the heated political rhetoric. Loughner apparently shot Giffords for his own reasons independent of the political climate.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I don't know, he seems schizophrenic so I guess it's possible, but considering his apparent paranoia about authority figures probably not. But I guess Stump's distinction is valuable, she may have been (in part) shot because she's a politician, but it had absolutely nothing to do with her views on political issues as a Dem or even in general, it was his personal disagreement with her over a total non issue. The rhetoric being more or less tense than it is now would not have, I think, made this shooting more or less likely because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what that rhetoric is concerned with.

It seems like he didn't agree with her politics though. His friends did say he occasionally talked to them about times she said or did something politically (or otherwise?) he thought was dumb, or something.

I mean, the dude was obviously touched by right wing nutjob paranoids on the internet. There are some specific people you can trace some of his ideas to that are just that.

So it wasn't apolitical. It just wasn't due to any talking heads convincing him he should in his mind. I don't think it was independent from the political climate, I'm fairly sure that fed it to some degree.

 

[FlyinJ]

Also, the left didn't have a 24 hour news network egging on protesters during the Bush administration like the Tea Party does during the Obama administration.

Nor were any of the protesters encouraged to bring assault rifles and sidearms to the rallies, or wave around signs saying "I came unarmed... this time!".

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The Guardian is blogging about this live. Some references to Palin and Beck email exchange and the moderating on her Facebook page

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-us-politics

 

[SimpleDesign]

You're right, if you mean that it was worse under Bush. Calling Obama a socialist sort of pales in comparison to calling Bush Hitler.



So what? The Iraq War was a huge mistake, but not for the media-driven oil conspiracy garbage that led to widespread "No Blood for Oil" crazies out in full-force nationwide. Who's been winning the oil bids? China? Not to mention directly led to the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, which is worse (IMO) than the Obama-as-secret-Muslim theory.

Wow.

 

[Chichikov]

Chichikov - where did I say the issue of violence in political rhetoric IS less relevant? I said that this case should not be held responsible for the level of the rhetoric because there is no indication this case was influenced by that rhetoric. That's it. It's a side issue, it'd be like blaming a man who killed his wife for the insurance money on the heated political rhetoric. Loughner apparently shot Giffords for his own reasons independent of the political climate.

Let me ask you this (and I promise I'm going somewhere with it), had he been wearing a Palin 2012 shirt and shouted "Tea Party unite! don't tread on me!" as he was shooting, would that had made any difference?

Crazy people are crazy people, they do crazy thing.
Would that had made Palin all of a sudden more responsible or something?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Everyone forgot about this one because, well, Unitarians, but it's the same deal. The right wing points to the people who are ENDING AMERICA over and over and over. It's like getting x-rayed too much: eventually you're going to get cancer, except this cancer has a 9mm with a high-capacity magazine or an assault rifle.

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."

Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

 

[Deku]

It seems like he didn't agree with her politics though. His friends did say he occasionally talked to them about times she said or did something politically (or otherwise?) he thought was dumb, or something.

I mean, the dude was obviously touched by right wing nutjob paranoids on the internet. There are some specific people you can trace some of his ideas to that are just that.

So it wasn't apolitical. It just wasn't due to any talking heads convincing him he should in his mind. I don't think it was independent from the political climate, I'm fairly sure that fed it to some degree.

There is no evidence of this even in the most generous media reports. As much as I find Palin/Tea Party hyperbole disgusting and I'm somewhat glad they are being forced to explain themselves (note how the right wing whackos don't really try to defend their rants, but rather throw mud back at the democrats).

I knew a really unstable person who was a lot similar to Jared in highschool. He was my best friend, and people like that don't see things in terms of sides, at least not in the way we see it.

There is the world and there is them at the center. Everythign happens to them because the world is conspiring to destroy them etc. etc. So I doubt it mattered that the congresswoman is a Democrat, and a pretty conservative one at that.

 

[Gaborn]

I mean, the dude was obviously touched by right wing nutjob paranoids on the internet.

Source? The dude loves the Communist Manifesto, and the interview says he ONLY put "Mein Kampf" his page to screw with people.

Chichikov - it probably would have because then I could be more easily persuaded that he was influenced by the rhetoric on the right. People that PLAN shootings like this probably plan a LOT of details, it's not spur of the moment, so wearing THAT shirt at THAT time would have been to send a particular message. That wasn't the case this time.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Don't worry, its just in their humor collection

http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?products_id=584

 

[bistromathics]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but a Mother Jones reporter had a very interesting interview with a friend of Loughner's, really gives interesting insight on his emotional background and his opinions including an explanation of what he had against Giffords.

The guy sounds really bipolar

 

[ViperVisor]

You're right, if you mean that it was worse under Bush. Calling Obama a socialist sort of pales in comparison to calling Bush Hitler.

But Beck, it seems, has a Nazi fetish. In his first 18 months on Fox News, from early 2009 through the middle of this year, he and his guests invoked Hitler 147 times. Nazis, an additional 202 times.

So what? The Iraq War was a huge mistake, but not for the media-driven oil conspiracy garbage that led to widespread "No Blood for Oil" crazies out of full-force nationwide. Who's been winning the oil bids? China?

So what is 3rd grader logic. Bad start to this section of wrongness. The point is the epicenter in a place and strength where the anger fueled nonsense from some is understandable. Leaving a dog at home vs. a hamster. You would be super surprised if the later fucks up your living room furniture one day.

And Obama has carried on Bush's policies--including the ones people hated Bush for, like the Patriot Act--and even added to them. There are legitimate concerns with nationalizing healthcare, but this issue doesn't even begin to touch on most people's problems with Obama. In many ways, especially on civil liberties, he's even worse than Bush.

That is a sorry attempt at white-washing a couple of issues.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Source? The dude loves the Communist Manifesto, and the interview says he ONLY put "Mein Kampf" his page to screw with people.

His videos on youtube talked about going to a gold/silver standard for currency, politicians going against the constitution, and the "conscience dreaming" shit was drawn back to some extremist right wing wacko. If you look back in this thread you can find the specifics, but this is from stuff he posted 3 weeks ago.

 

[Askia47]

What evidence says he is left leaning? Just what the person who knew him said?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What evidence says he is left leaning? Just what the person who knew him said?

Same person who called him a pot head.

And whose friend on twitter with who she was chatting with about the thing wasn't happy with Obama's remarks on the shooting.

 

[BobsRevenge]

There is no evidence of this even in the most generous media reports.

There's evidence right on his own youtube page. How is this even controversial?

edit: Please note that I didn't talk about Palin or the Tea Party at all. They aren't really related to what I'm referring to.

 

[daoster]

Again, this argument that, "well, Beck and Palin weren't responsible this time....but they created the political climate that made him do it," is really amusing to me.

When the Fort Hood shooting occurred, the people on CNN were cautioning their viewers to not assume that this was some terrorist attack, or that the shooter was some fanatic of Islam. Wise words, it's never good to jump to conclusions.

The New York Times had an editorial that cautioned people not to cast prejudicial conclusions.

Again, wise words.

Then this tragedy occurred, and one of the first person CNN interviews basically says, "its those DAMN right wingers...I don't know what the shooter's motive is, but its those right wingers!" CNN lets it slide. What happened to not jumping to conclusions?

The New York Times had an editorial today that says, "you can't blame the tea partiers directly, but they're responsible for it indirectly anyways!

It wasn't even clear whether or not Congresswoman Gliffords was still alive when Paul Krugman writes on his blog that it was the right winger's fault (even though he didn't know the shooter's motive)!

Isn't this ridiculous to anybody? ANYBODY at all?

 

[Gaborn]

There's evidence right on his own youtube page. How is this even controversial?

His youtube page is all over the map and completely insane.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

One of Patton's favorite books was Rommel's. Just sayin'.

 

[Clipjoint]

 

[teruterubozu]

When the Fort Hood shooting occurred, the people on CNN were cautioning their viewers to not assume that this was some terrorist attack, or that the shooter was some fanatic of Islam. Wise words, it's never good to jump to conclusions.

Yeah and what was the response from the right? "I told you so, you politically correct morons."

 

[BobsRevenge]

His youtube page is all over the map and completely insane.

But much of its content is obviously related to extremist conservative ideas in one way or another. So it shouldn't be controversial to say that he was touched by people on the internet who espouse them. There wasn't anything that was extremist liberal, iirc.

 

[Chichikov]

One of Patton's favorite books was Rommel's. Just sayin'.

I'm not sure what you're saying actually.

 

[Evlar]

Again, this argument that, "well, Beck and Palin weren't responsible this time....but they created the political climate that made him do it," is really amusing to me.

When the Fort Hood shooting occurred, the people on CNN were cautioning their viewers to not assume that this was some terrorist attack, or that the shooter was some fanatic of Islam. Wise words, it's never good to jump to conclusions.

The New York Times had an editorial that cautioned people not to cast prejudicial conclusions.

Again, wise words.

Then this tragedy occurred, and one of the first person CNN interviews basically says, "its those DAMN right wingers...I don't know what the shooter's motive is, but its those right wingers!" CNN lets it slide. What happened to not jumping to conclusions?

The New York Times had an editorial today that says, "you can't blame the tea partiers directly, but they're responsible for it indirectly anyways!

It wasn't even clear whether or not Congresswoman Gliffords was still alive when Paul Krugman writes on his blog that it was the right winger's fault (even though he didn't know the shooter's motive)!

Isn't this ridiculous to anybody? ANYBODY at all?

Here's Krugman's blog, for those who are interested:

Assassination Attempt In Arizona
A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot.

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

Update: I see that Sarah Palin has called the shooting “tragic”. OK, a bit of history: right-wingers went wild over anyone who called 9/11 a tragedy, insisting that it wasn’t a tragedy, it was an atrocity.

Update: I’m going to take down comments on this one; they would need a lot of moderating, because the crazies are coming out in force, and it’s all too likely to turn into a flame war.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/

 

[RustyNails]

Weird. I was expecting him to be an Independent given his views.

 

[besada]

I'm not sure what you're saying actually.

It seems pretty clear he's suggesting that one's reading list doesn't determine one's political affiliations. Certainly Loughner's doesn't leave us much of anywhere, since it lists libertarian enshrined works, next to the Communist Manifesto, next to fictional treatises about the evils of socialism.

It maybe tells us he was a pretty good troll.