A man who wanted to see a world of equality and peace, and yet his life ended in violence, being memorialized barely a week after another brutal slaying.
I’m really not sure what to say that wouldn’t sound banal.
PAD
A man who wanted to see a world of equality and peace, and yet his life ended in violence, being memorialized barely a week after another brutal slaying.
I’m really not sure what to say that wouldn’t sound banal.
PAD
• 
Same here, Peter.
I had some pithy comments to make, but y’know, reviewing it, I just changed my mind. Nothing I could say would sound right.
Brutal slayings happen all the time. Last Thursday, a guy in San Francisco killed his grandmother before killing himself. And just last night, a teenager was shot and killed outside of a church in Oakland.
.
Isn’t EVERY MLK Day melancholy?
Dr. King died when I was an infant and didn’t find out much about him till I was an adult, having grown up and been educated in Texas. However, as I read more about him and watched/listen to his speeches, I’ve discovered that I miss him. I sincerely wish that I had had the opportunity to see him as he would have been. I had more on my mind, but I think Mr. David is right. It’s beyond my ability to put properly so I’ll simply reiterate: Even though I never knew him…I miss him.
Dr. King is one of those people who’s going to be missed — not just because of who he was, but because it would be valuable to have his insights on things happening now. While this is by no means setting the two on the same moral high ground, I feel much the same way about the late, great, Harry Chapin.
What’s banal is the deification of Dr. King. Of COURSE Dr. King was right. OF COURSE Dr. King had the weight of history behind him. What kind of fool could have EVER opposed what he was thinking of?
Except, people did. LOTS of people. And they called him a hate monger, a Communist and a socialist and a destroyer of the American way of life. In terms that sounds all to contemporary.
Lessons of the day? Even when you’re on the right side of history, there’s going to be a lot of sweat, tear and (unfortunately) blood that still have to be invested. And, two, history repeats itself if you’re not watching; are you watching your words and attitude today?
Out of curiosity, I looked up newspaper editorials the day before John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And the editorials were scathingly critical of him and his policies.
.
Then he was shot.
.
The exact same newspapers quickly canonized him.
.
That, Roger, may well be the lesson of the day.
.
PAD
Of course, this is the perfect time to take 15 minutes and reacquaint ourselves with his dream.
http://www.mlkonline.net/video-i-have-a-dream-speech.html
People have been killing each other since a caveman was able to get his hands on a rock. And until we know last week’s killer’s motivations I feel it is a mistake to draw comparisons.
.
That said, it is a fact that anyone who can truly change things will always be in danger, since there are plenty of powerful people who like things the way they are Those who plow on ahead regardless of the risks should be truly commended. Hillary, Obama, Palin all arouse strong passions and unfortunately it would not be completeely surprising of someone took a shot at either one of them.
.
It is the main reason Colin Powell’s wife did not want him to run. Imagine how different history could be if he had. But that’s just one thing that fear – based on solid grounds, mind you – has cost us.
Amongst all of the bogus posturing over the last week as to the motivations of the killer, some interesting facts have come out about political assassins–such as the fact that many are not all that political at all, just losers who see their actions as a means to power and importance. And you know–they are, terrifyingly, correct.
.
People are afraid of what pundits on the left and right are saying about each other, about the “tone” they set. I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of; some lonely outcast who hears voices in his head, who feels that everyone around him is just another sheep, unable to see the truth that is so painfully obvious to him…and who sees how, with one simple action we now are doting on every insane thought that crossed Loughner’s mind. And think, “that could be me.”
.
And the solution? I don’t see one. We can’t and should not want to suppress the news from reporting the facts and even if you think we should it is not going to happen. It’s a new world and the crazies can reach billions once they get their attention.
.
I think we are entering the age of the murderous troll.
I will agree and disagree. There’s not a real good solution; there’s no way to enforce standards externally, and you’ll never get people to ratchet down voluntarily; people just won’t toe the line like that because we’re all stubborn cusses.
.
But it’s just ignoring reality to think that the mentally ill and the losers don’t take cues from larger society. BECAUSE there’s so much time and energy, they’ll focus in on that to make their marks.. Too, from my mis-spent youth as a social scientist, I know there’s tons of empirical evidence that using violent rhetoric makes it more likely for violence to occur. We may not like that this occurs, but it does us no good to think otherwise.
.
As I said, there’s no good solution, which makes me more than a tad unhappy.
I don’t know…people say the rhetoric of today is so off the charts bad and the violence we see is the logical result but A-I don;t know if it’s accurate to say we are seeing more violent rhetoric than before and B-if those good old days of less extremist views were so great why was there still so much violence back then?
.
Someone was on NPR saying something to the effect of “You didn’t see this sort of thing when people got their news from Walter Cronkite.” and I have to wonder what parallel universe they came from.
.
“I don’t know…people say the rhetoric of today is so off the charts bad and the violence we see is the logical result but A-I don;t know if it’s accurate to say we are seeing more violent rhetoric than before and B-if those good old days of less extremist views were so great why was there still so much violence back then?”
.
Bill, yeah, we’ve always had the fringe and the not-quite-fringe-enough groups who used violent rhetoric (and sometimes violence) and, yeah, we had politicians in the early years of this country’s existence get so nasty with one another that they actually got into duels and killed one another.
.
But, so what?
.
At some point all things in a society should be evolving towards a better form of itself and not devolving. And right now it feels like the political discourse is devolving and is getting insane. Forget the fringe groups and the $&!^ disturber pundits, we’ve got elected officials and people running for office calling for acts of violence if they don’t get their way in an election. And when fellow members of their party, their team or their supporters are asked to refute the rhetoric they come out and support it instead.
.
Only a few decades ago we would have called someone advocating violence as a viable option for political change a fringe extremist at best and a domestic terrorist at worse. Last year we called those people the Republican/Tea Party candidates for office. And the kicker is that they weren’t shunned by the crowds when saying the stuff they were saying; they were cheered and, in some cases, voted into office.
.
Somehow I just don’t see it as a bad thing that people are saying that the rhetoric is getting extreme and that the people that have been throwing it around should maybe reconsider their garbage before their calls for violence actually cause an act of violence. I just don’t see it as a bad thing that people are talking about wanting to see some responsibility and maybe some accountability on the part of the people saying the garbage that has been getting thrown around lately.
.
No, we don’t outlaw words and we can’t institute censorship statutes, but some things should be common sense in an even moderately civilized society. One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that violence is not an option that’s off of the table as an election tool is inexcusable. One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that 2nd Amendment remedies are an acceptable fallback to not getting your way in an upcoming election. One of those things better dámņëd well be declaring that part of your campaign strategy is to make your opponent afraid to leave his house while one of your campaign staff is telling cheering Tea Partiers that if ballots don’t work, bullets will.
.
Except that, apparently, the Republican Party, the Tea Party leaders, conservative pundits and a number of their supporters think it’s just fine and dandy to declare that violence against Democrats is a viable option if election results don’t go their way. And, I’m sorry, but saying that you’re not really advocating violence one interview later and then returning to the rhetoric on the campaign trail doesn’t cut it; you’re advocating violence and you are going to be the inspiration for an act of violence sooner or later.
.
When that’s seemingly becoming an institutionalized part of your party’s talking points and campaigning technique; I think it’s more than acceptable to say that there’s something wrong with you and that you need to reevaluate your rhetoric before you do set someone off.
.
Ðámņ… I’m tired right now…
.
One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that violence is not an option that’s off of the table as an election tool is inexcusable. One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that 2nd Amendment remedies are an acceptable fallback to not getting your way in an upcoming election is not acceptable. One of those things better dámņëd well be declaring that part of your campaign strategy is to make your opponent afraid to leave his house while one of your campaign staff is telling cheering Tea Partiers that if ballots don’t work, bullets will is not acceptable.
.
Bed time now.
Extreme violent language has been part of the election cycle almost since the founding of the Republic.
.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/sources-for-attack-ads-circa-1
.
One newspaper opined if Jefferson was elected President that, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”
.
Violent rhetoric in American politics is nothing new.
Violent rhetoric in American politics is nothing new.
.
Which gives carte blanche, apparently, to continue to use it now. And, for those on the Right, to continue to defend it even when it’s indefensible.
.
Rather than rise above it, we’ll just continue doing the same dumb crap, right? That’s just fine and dandy?
.
Yet, we think we’re so dámņëd civilized? I’ll let you know when I’m done laughing.
.
You know what, Malcolm?
.
.
I
.
Don’t
.
Fûçkìņg
.
Care.
.
.
Slavery was an institution in life since before we even started this little country up. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?
.
Up until early in the last century we had child labor as the norm that included putting 7 year olds in dilapidated mines and run down factories with no safety measures or care if they were killed. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?
.
Up until around the middle of the last century we excluded by law blacks and woman from voting. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?
.
Up until early last century it was almost considered okay but many in the South to see the KKK lynch black men. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?
.
Up until just late last century we had laws in this country forbidding mixed marriage. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing them back?
.
Up until the labor reforms in this country we had industry working people six and seven days a week for 10 to 14 hours a day some days with almost reasonable no pay, no overtime and no protections for the workforce from abuse by the employers. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing that back?
.
We have always had garbage like what you cite in politics. However, it was getting to a point where it was more fringe talk and less mainstream, regular usage. Why are you advocating for going backwards rather than forward just here? Or would you like to see us go as equally far back on everything else as well?
“Slavery was an institution in life since before we even started this little country up. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?”
.
Slavery survived because conventional wisdom of the day held that slavery was a dying institution. No one foresaw the cotton gin revitalizing it, so it made more sense to punt on the issue rather than deal with it at the Constitutional Convention.
.
“Up until early in the last century we had child labor as the norm that included putting 7 year olds in dilapidated mines and run down factories with no safety measures or care if they were killed. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?
.
.
Up until around the middle of the last century we excluded by law blacks and woman from voting. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?”
.
The phrase “comparing apples and oranges” mean anything to you?
.
.
“Up until early last century it was almost considered okay but many in the South to see the KKK lynch black men. You going to point that out and then say it’s okay if someone pushes for bringing it back?”
.
That’s one of two reasons the NRA was founded, the other being the teaching of basic marksmanship. Union soldiers realized they couldn’t defend every black individually, so they wanted to insure freed slaves could defend themselves. It’s a perfect illustration of one of the reasons for the second amendment.
.
“No, we don’t outlaw words and we can’t institute censorship statutes, but some things should be common sense in an even moderately civilized society. One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that violence is not an option that’s off of the table as an election tool is inexcusable. One of things better dámņëd well be that saying that 2nd Amendment remedies are an acceptable fallback to not getting your way in an upcoming election. One of those things better dámņëd well be declaring that part of your campaign strategy is to make your opponent afraid to leave his house while one of your campaign staff is telling cheering Tea Partiers that if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
.
On the the purpose of the second amendment, Angle had it right. You might not like our Constitution, or wish the Bill of Rights was multiple choice with second amendment only applying to deer season, but there’s a reason why leftist law professors argue against original intent. This is also why certain SCOTUS justices also say we need to consider foreign laws in making domestic rulings.
.
Now does this mean I advocate the death of any given congresscritter? Hëll no. Yet I find it ironic that it takes an assassination attempt on a democrat for the Left to suddenly decry violent rhetoric. Did anyone on the Left ever demand that Obama disavow Bill Ayers, who is still unrepentant about his activities with SDS? This man literally took up arms against the country, but the closest the Left will get to even addressing the issue is to say that he’s friends with an unelected conservative also.
.
In 1994, Charles Rangle characterized the Republican takeover of the House as a “new Klan” that wore dark suits and red ties rather than sheets and hoods. He also said “not even the Nazis” attempted what the Republicans were.*
.
How many Leftists disavow Che Guevara? We see them making movies romanticizing the butcher of Las Cabanas prison. If anyone used violent rhetoric, it was that sonuvabitch, but I doubt we’ll see any decrease in Che t-shirts.
.
“We have always had garbage like what you cite in politics. However, it was getting to a point where it was more fringe talk and less mainstream, regular usage. Why are you advocating for going backwards rather than forward just here? Or would you like to see us go as equally far back on everything else as well?”
.
First, you’re offering a false dichotomy. Either disavow violent rhetoric or go backwards on everything. There are other options.
.
Growing up a conservative, I’ve got a lifetime of hearing hateful rhetoric directed towards my beliefs. Racist, Nazi, Homophobe – these are all words that have been directed at me at one time or another. And only now the Left is saying, “Maybe this violent rhetoric is bad.” Forgive me for being skeptical, but it seems like just another gambit to censor opposing views.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Technically true, since the Nazis never tried to guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting, or any other provision of the Contract with America that I’m aware of.
I don’t know…people say the rhetoric of today is so off the charts bad and the violence we see is the logical result but A-I don;t know if it’s accurate to say we are seeing more violent rhetoric than before and B-if those good old days of less extremist views were so great why was there still so much violence back then?
.
I think we’re seeing more pervasive violent rhetoric, disseminated more thoroughly and more relentlessly.
.
It wasn’t that in the “good old days” the views were less extremist. They were, however, bound in presentation by the Fairness Doctrine, demanding that networks present both sides of an issue, rather than just pretending they’re fair and balanced. Now you have polarizing views delivered incessantly that mostly serve to drive people apart.
.
PAD
Palin, who was out trying to defend her stupidity again yesterday, could learn something from MLK.
.
But she won’t.
What’s even more sad? Arizona never wanted to observe MLK Day in the first place.
Was it Arizona as a whole? Or was it just their elected representative, John McCain?
.
PAD
My memory is that a main stumbling block was Evan Mecham. As governor, he strongly opposed allowing there to be a Martin Luther King holiday (due to his belief that MLK was a commie/pinko law-breaking rabble-rouser). The previous governor had instituted a MLK holiday; Mecham rescinded this as one of his first acts in office.
McCain was a stumbling block as well, at least at first. He initially supported and defended Mecham’s opposition to an MLK holiday. But when this proved to be widely unpopular, he reversed himself and came out in support of establishing the holiday.
Mecham’s stand on this was controversial not only outside Arizona, it was controversial within Arizona as well. Mecham was removed from office, and soon after he was gone the state instituted celebration of the MLK holiday.
Jerry,
Really?
.
At some point all things in a society should be evolving towards a better form of itself and not devolving. And right now it feels like the political discourse is devolving and is getting insane. Forget the fringe groups and the $&!^ disturber pundits, we’ve got elected officials and people running for office calling for acts of violence if they don’t get their way in an election. And when fellow members of their party, their team or their supporters are asked to refute the rhetoric they come out and support it instead.”
.
Since I know you have the sources/examples, please cite them. I’m hoping you have more than Angle.
.
“Only a few decades ago we would have called someone advocating violence as a viable option for political change a fringe extremist at best and a domestic terrorist at worse. Last year we called those people the Republican/Tea Party candidates for office. And the kicker is that they weren’t shunned by the crowds when saying the stuff they were saying; they were cheered and, in some cases, voted into office.”
.
Again, you have had actual contact with some of thse crowds. But it seems you are a painting a whole group of engaged, concerned, passionate citizens with a broad brush.
And it wasn’t a long-time Republican Congressman who advocated shooting Rick Scott in the head.
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/more-violent-democrats-congressman-paul-kanjorski-on-florida-governor-rick-scott-put-him-against-the-wall-and-shoot-him/
.
Thankfully, this arrogant jáçkášš has finally been defeated. But you know know dámņ well that if Palin, Beck, or anyone associated with the Tea party had made such a statement, the loop would still be running, especially in lieu of what happened last week. And their careers would be over and the party as a whole smeared for months.
.
But no, we live in a world in which concerned citizens worried about such hot-button topics as the debt, the deficit, taxes and – okay – Obamacare – and speak their minds are labeled extreme and Keith Olbermann calls for an end to violent rhetoric despite the fact he spent hours talking about how George Buch was a threat to our democracy and his diatribe against Scott Brown remains the single most disgusting, vile, hateful attack I have ever seen or heard uttered against someone – he even leaves Paul Begala in the dust.
.
We also live in a world where insteadof having a discussion with an invited guest, Whoopi Goldberg can, after uttering an expletive, walk off the set of her program and then have the gall to hawk a book in which she wistfully hopes for a return to civility and manners.
.
“When that’s seemingly becoming an institutionalized part of your party’s talking points and campaigning technique; I think it’s more than acceptable to say that there’s something wrong with you and that you need to reevaluate your rhetoric before you do set someone off.”
.
And there is still no evidence that “rhetoric” set off the Tucson shooter. Or Timothy McVeigh for that matter. Yet the usual suspects are still blamed. Rush – who I NEVER listen to, by the way – and ‘violent voices”, on the Right of course, were made scapegoats. It helped Clinton rebound. But it’s not 1995 anymore. There are many more outlets and venues to call the MSM on their bûllšhìŧ.
.
PAD,
It wasn’t that in the “good old days” the views were less extremist. They were, however, bound in presentation by the Fairness Doctrine, demanding that networks present both sides of an issue”
.
whereas, a free press shouldn’t be demanded to present or not present anything. Except by their viewers. because, really, who the hëll decides what counts as presenting both sides of an issue anyway? An abortion story showing a clean-cut girl explaining why she needs to terminate her pregnancy while the “opposing view” has either angry protesters or a religious fanatic like Randall Terry? Or you could reverse it and show a woman about to get her second abortion that year and a clean-cut clergyman explaining why he feels abortion is abominable and must end. There are countless variables.
.
Yet the fact is the news is put together by human beings, each of whom have their own biases. And the vast, vast majority of them until recently have been liberal biases because that’s what study after study shows.
.
“rather than just pretending they’re fair and balanced.”
Yet another not-so-veiled shot at Fox. Guess what? There was no Fox, no Limbaugh, no Beck, no Palin, no Coulter in the ’60s. No right-wing talk radio. And we wound up with the assassination of a President, his brother who possibly could have been President, the assassination of the two most significant civil rights leaders of the time. Oh, and for god measure, the shooting of George Wallace. Amazing.
.
Maybe, if we’re going to give rhetoric any weight as a cause of violence – which I really don’t unless it’s a skinhead cult or something – maybe having “polarizing views delivered incessantly that mostly serve to drive people apart” actually provides an outlet for people and prevents them from acting out violently. Because if they’re frustrated they feel they can just cal in to Laura Ingraham, go see Glenn Beck or feel Bill O’Reilly, at least, is looking out for them.
.
I’m not saying that’s absolutely true. I’m saying it’s s0mething to chew on for the crowd who is obsessed with “rhetoric” and it’s link to violence. the evidence seems to support that violence was much more prevalent when the flower generation was in full bloom and “Uncle Walter” was all by his lonesome skewing people’e perception of the Vietnam war.
I’m not saying that’s absolutely true. I’m saying it’s s0mething to chew on for the crowd who is obsessed with “rhetoric” and it’s link to violence. the evidence seems to support that violence was much more prevalent when the flower generation was in full bloom and “Uncle Walter” was all by his lonesome skewing people’e perception of the Vietnam war.
,
As always, Jerome, you spend a lot of effort to talk to everything I was saying except, y’know, the actual point. And that is that when people talk about guns, guns, guns, and reloading, and Second Amendment solutions, then the very next time someone gets shot–whether it’s related to their rhetoric or not–anyone with a brain should know that that sort of rabble-rousing discourse is going to get blamed. I mean, that’s just obvious. It’s inevitable. If we’ve got people declaring that Bugs Bunny cartoons were responsible for violent behavior in children–because, y’know, when Cain killed Abel, it was obviously influenced by repeated viewings of “What’s Opera, Doc?”–then people loudly urging the use of firearms in solving problems are going to get tagged for being partly, if not solely, responsible for inciting gun crimes, especially when it’s toward political figures.
.
That’s just the way it is, no matter how right wingers attempt to take random, ill-thought-out quotes by Democrats from time to time and try to put it on par with the systematic atmosphere of violent solutions as promoted by the right.
.
And by the way: someone purporting to be a journalist putting forward the assertion that he can’t wrap himself around the idea of presenting both sides of a story…my God, that’s Journalism 101. The fact that you dismiss as impossible one of the fundamental tenets of journalism just speaks volumes about you, Jerome. It really does.
.
PAD
.
“because, really, who the hëll decides what counts as presenting both sides of an issue anyway?”
.
I can answer that one in regards to Fox News easily. Anyone with a grasp on reality.
.
Fox News claims from Fox and Friends to Hannity that it took Obama six days to respond to a terrorist incident and then refused to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” in the response? Then they should have to each hour play the tape of Obama speaking days earlier than they claimed he did and with uninterrupted audio so that the people watching Fox “News” can actually hear Obama saying the words that Fox News is reporting he didn’t say.
.
Fox News claims from Fox and Friends to Hannity that Obama wouldn’t say “Terrorism” or “War” in the State of the Union? No problem. They have to air the clips of Obama actually saying those words in the SoTU each hour.
.
Fox News claims from Fox and Friends to Hannity that Jon Stewart attacked Al Gore and the idea of Global Warming and Global Climate Change? No problem! They just have to play the full video (complete with the beginning and end of the video that they edited out) showing that he did no such thing and actually said the exact opposite of what the Fox News reporters and editorialists are saying he said.
.
A Fox News host claims that a Tea Party rally drew two or three times the 5,000 people it was expected to draw? No problem! They should have to then play the pre-broadcast live feed video where he’s asking if the attendance numbers got to the 5,000 they expected and being told that it wasn’t anywhere near that high.
.
Bill O’Reilly claims he never said something that the liberal smear merchants like The Catholic League and WWII Vets groups said he said? No problem! He should have the remarks he claimed he never made but actually did played at the beginning of his show.
.
Granted, we may have to take Beck off of the air completely since pretty much everything he says anymore other than his name, the day of the week and that he’s on Fox News ranges from being amazingly wrong to flat out lies. However, given that his audience numbers have dropped like a rock this year and he’s even lost some radio stations due to falling ratings; I think all but the dimmest bulbs that made up his audience are figuring out his penchant for bûllšhìŧ.
.
.
.
The biggest reason that guys like Rush, Beck and the Fox News hosts dislike the idea of anything like a fairness doctrine? It’s because it’s really hard to tell lies about what was said or done if the telling of those lies would then require your station or show to air the actual truth.
.
“Since I know you have the sources/examples, please cite them. I’m hoping you have more than Angle.”
.
“Again, you have had actual contact with some of thse crowds. But it seems you are a painting a whole group of engaged, concerned, passionate citizens with a broad brush.”
.
Sure, I listed them before in the previous thread Palin thread, but wht not?
.
——————————————————————-
.
Stephen Broden, Republican political candidate from the state of Texas in the 30th congressional district –
.
BRODEN: “Our nation was founded on violence.”
WATSON: “In 2010 you would urge that as an option, though?”
BRODEN: “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as relates to our liberties and our freedoms.”
.
-————————————————————-
.
Catherine Crabill, failed GOP candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates – “We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that’s the beauty of our Second Amendment right.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Sharron Angle, Nevada Republican/Tea Party candidate – “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
.
I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – “Right now I’m a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn’t a game. this isn’t just a political talk show that’s happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I’m going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind. Where do we go…
.
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people– we the people– are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Brad Goehring, candidate (R-CA) – “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to “thin” the herd.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) – “We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Rep. Allen West, (R-FL) – “Let me tell you what you’ve got to do. You’ve got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house. That’s the only way that you’re going to win. That’s the only way you’re going to get these people’s attention.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Joyce Kaufman, then Chief of Staff for Allen West – (Speaking on the then upcoming 2010 election) “And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) – ”If I could start a country with a bunch of people it would be the folks standing out here the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp. Let’s take them out, let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!”
.
——————————————————————-
.
So, yeah, really.
.
And I could have kept going if I wanted to spend more time digging around the web. And while these useful idiots were talking about bullets working when ballets won’t, other useful idiots from politicians to popular Conservative pundits were stirring $&!^ up to help create an atmosphere of hate and fear amongst the very stupid and the very gullible.
.
——————————————————————-
.
Senator Chuck Grassley (Lying to the stupid about what end of life care actually is, does and means – “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Glenn Beck, speaking on President Obama – “[T]his guy is, I believe, a racist.” And saying that Obama has, “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
Rush Limbaugh – “The problem is that you’ve got people running the show now, from Obama all the way down through his administration through the House of Representatives, who regardless of their race are racists.”
.
Rush Limbaugh – “Some people are thinking — some people speculating that all of this — the cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform, is nothing more than reparations in disguise, that it is a way of transferring the nation’s wealth to its, quote-unquote, “rightful owners”; that they’re smart enough to know that if they call a piece of legislation “reparations,” it doesn’t have a prayer. But if they couch the legislation in fairness and compassion — the usual liberal terms — that people will go for it, because they think that they have created enough white guilt at all of the unjust immorality of the history of this country that people sit by and let it happen, so that their own personal guilt can be assuaged, regardless of the impact on the country.”
.
——————————————————————-
.
And while all that is going on you have Palin adding in her bits by acting the part of the professional liar she is and misrepresenting every thing she could in the healthcare debate into death panels and Obama wanting to march the elderly and babies with disabilities like hers in front of his death panels to be deemed unworthy of care and/or life. And while I’ve said in the last couple of Palin threads and the one last year when her “retreat/reload” remark was being discussed that she shouldn’t have been made the poster child for this last mess and that her “gun violence” remarks were less direct and much more mild compared to some; the simple fact of the matter is that she was asked, sometimes begged, by pundits and observers to say something to refute the garbage her pet Tea Party candidates and favorite pundits were saying and she would not do it. She would run to Twitter or run to a chat show and declare support for them and talk about how the “lamestream media” wasn’t going to create a conflict between them.
.
And her crosshairs map? She’s not doing herself any favors right now by pulling it down right after the shooting but then having her people put out the story that they weren’t even the ones pulling it down and, despite Palin herself calling them “bullseyes” in her Twitter posts, retroactively claiming that they were always just surveyor marks and they didn’t have anything to do with the graphics anyhow. I guess in Palin’s world some of the conservative values she speaks so highly of all translate into 1) support violent rhetoric and calls for violence directed at you opponents, 2) lie like a cheap rug and 3) play CYA, whine and cry and play victim after it blows up in your face.
.
Oh, and how about this winner of a Tea Party leader?
.
Nigel Coleman is the Virginia Tea Party leader who published for his supporters the home address Tom Perriello’s brother by mistake when trying to publish Perriello’s. The results were threats to Perriello sent to his brother’s home and ultimately someone cutting the gas lines at “his” house. Last week this glorious example of the need for mental health care commented on the shooting in Tucson.
.
“Cutting that Gas line doesn’t seem so bad now does it?…What?….. Too Soon?”
.
http://twitter.com/nachocoalmine/status/24581014353354752
.
So, for the Virginia Tea Party leader, the shooting in Tucson is just one big joke begging for him to add a punchline to. Yup, there’s a winner for you. Still has support amongst the tea Partiers here in Virginia as well.
.
“Again, you have had actual contact with some of thse crowds. But it seems you are a painting a whole group of engaged, concerned, passionate citizens with a broad brush.”
.
No, I’m painting with that brush the people I actually had professional and personal contact with, other officers (some of who are hardcore conservatives and they were getting disgusted with what they were seeing) in Virginia that I keep in touch with who had contact with the, the crowds in other states on the news cheering things like the stuff I listed above and the Tea Partiers themselves all over the country who were cheering stuff like that while showing up with sign declaring that “We’re Not Armed – This Time” and “Grandma’s not shovel ready” and the borderline to flat out racist signs depicting Obama as an African witch doctor, declaring that “The zoo has an African lion, the White House has a lying African,” and “Obama is an undocumented worker- Go back to Kenya.”
.
And even the majority of the ones who weren’t overtly screaming their delight at threats of violence and walking around with those signs didn’t do the sensible thing and denounce the garbage. So, no, for both professional and personal reasons I’m not a big fan of the Tea Party as a movement right now. Maybe when they start acting like a responsible movement and throw out/stop supporting the people spouting violent rhetoric and borderline to flat out racist garbage before as something other than a long after the fact CYA move…
.
“And it wasn’t a long-time Republican Congressman who advocated shooting Rick Scott in the head.”
.
“Thankfully, this arrogant jáçkášš has finally been defeated. But you know know dámņ well that if Palin, Beck, or anyone associated with the Tea party had made such a statement, the loop would still be running, especially in lieu of what happened last week. And their careers would be over and the party as a whole smeared for months.”
.
Yup, he said something stupid. And I condemned it when I heard about it. Oh, and Olbermann condemned it. As a matter of fact, Olbermann, who you decry as the biggest hater in cable news, has stated flat out in number of times now that threats of violence and acts of violence are wrong. And not just when aimed at Democrats, but when they’ve been aimed at Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Ingraham and others. For that matter, Huffington post Kanjorski out on his hypocrisy for calling for less violent rhetoric while using it himself.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/paul-kanjorski-rick-scott-shot_n_807608.html
.
Now you show me where the Fox News story is where Hannity or Beck condemned Angle, Crabill or West. The closest you’re likely to find is Beck saying that, yeah, if what the MSM said about Broden was correct than Broden shouldn’t have said it, but that he figured that the MSM was just getting it wrong to begin with. The most I see there and pretty much everywhere else is fingers pointing at the right now less common examples elected Democrats saying crap like that and condemning it while still refusing to condemn what the áššhølëš on the Right are saying.
.
“Keith Olbermann calls for an end to violent rhetoric despite the fact he spent hours talking about how George Buch was a threat to our democracy and his diatribe against Scott Brown remains the single most disgusting, vile, hateful attack I have ever seen or heard uttered against someone – he even leaves Paul Begala in the dust.”
.
Well, since Bush just said in his own book that he personally authorized much of the things that Olbermann condemned him fo; I’d say he pretty much nailed Bush with some of his comments. On the other hand, when he has been out of bounds or over the top, I’ve said he was out of bounds or over the top. I’ve said it here for that matter in the threads where Peter complemented Olbermann. But, again, the other part of that is that Olbermann denounced calls for violence and acts of violence when made by people on the left ranging from high officials to anonymous $&!^ disturbers every single time they’ve been made in the past. Even when he’s questioned the hypocrisy of the person claiming to be a victim (such as when Michelle Malkin posted the home address and phone number of someone she didn’t politically like, they got death threats, she shrugged it off, a liberal blogger than published her information, she got threats and then went on Fox News and whined about being a victim of the evil liberal left) he made it clear that threats of violence were not something that civilized, intelligent people do. He’s made it clear that you can attack the ideas and the stands that they take, but you do not cross the line into threats, calls for or acts of violence.
.
But, of course, he’s the vile hater while Beck, Hannity, Rush, Palin, Angle, West and others who talk out of both sides of their mouths on the issue and declare their support for people who are being condemned for vile comments like the above quoted ones or actually make the dámņëd comments themselves are all patriots and great people.
.
“We also live in a world where insteadof having a discussion with an invited guest, Whoopi Goldberg can, after uttering an expletive, walk off the set of her program and then have the gall to hawk a book in which she wistfully hopes for a return to civility and manners.”
.
Yeah, because bad manners are just so equal in nature and severity to calling for acts of violence against your political opponents. But, hey, since you want to bring it up…
.
I and most of the people here and many elsewhere said that she was stupid for handling the O’Reilly appearance the way she did. Of course, if you want to play the game of just pointing out what the other side does, O’Reilly is the same áššhølë who screams over his guests, cuts their mics, has like minded guests on after the people he disagrees with are gone to talk about how wrong the guest was, lies about what was said and what the facts are and, as just one example, spent years calling a man “Doctor Killer,” or “Tiller the Baby Killer” on air, made up “facts” about how he and his clinic were covering up statutory rape cases, declared that anyone who just stood by and let “Tiller the Baby Killer” keep working had blood on their hands and pushed all of that spin over and over again until someone finally murdered the man. He then played “What, me?” about everything he said because, in O’Reilly’s world, his words only get things done and influence events when he wants to claim credit for something. This is the same man tried to make a (stupid to begin with) point that torture was okay by smearing US military heroes in WWII by declaring that US soldiers shot and killed in cold blood captured and unarmed German troops in the Malmedy Massacre. When “haters” like Olbermann and various veteran groups said that what O’Reilly said was both a lie and despicable his people first changed the online transcript to “Normandy” (which made it make even less sense) for a few days before finally saying that he wasn’t wrong, it’s just that everyone was misrepresenting what he said. You see, he was talking about after the Malmedy Massacre, after the German’s killed unarmed and captured American soldiers in cold blood, that American troops in Malmedy got retribution for it, But that was a lie too since he cited the Malmedy Massacre by name as what he was talking about, got the date right and even got the number of executed “German” soldiers right. Then there was the time that he called the Pope senile since the Pope was against Bush’s war and, of course, when he got condemned for it declared that he never said it and that he was being smeared by liberal liars like the MSM and The Catholic League. And all of this and loads more while pushing books about morals and true American values like honesty and integrity.
.
Whoopi Goldberg acted like an idiot, but given that O’Reilly should count himself lucky that he’s not shunned by polite society at this point… Oh, and the last time I looked, Whoopi Goldberg wasn’t a politician, an elected office holder or someone being held up as the go to girl for 2012 by her supporters. I think that alone sets a different standard.
.
“And there is still no evidence that “rhetoric” set off the Tucson shooter. Or Timothy McVeigh for that matter. Yet the usual suspects are still blamed. Rush – who I NEVER listen to, by the way – and ‘violent voices”, on the Right of course, were made scapegoats. It helped Clinton rebound. But it’s not 1995 anymore. There are many more outlets and venues to call the MSM on their bûllšhìŧ.”
.
Yeah, and I can tell you for a fact that anyone in my job has seen a hëll of a lot more threats and actually had to make more arrests for credible threats in the last two years of this bûllšhìŧ than in prior years. Go talk to a Secret Service agent some time. Ask them what the last two years were like. Threats to the President went up almost 300% from previous levels.
.
Hey, here’s an something you can do. Go research Gregory Giusti, Charles Wilson, and Byron Williams. All three of them had something in common. All three of them in investigatory interviews with law enforcement officials cited Glenn Beck by name and the other conspiracy rhetoric and violent rhetoric as what set them down their little paths of violence. So the “bûllšhìŧ” is in fact not quite the “bûllšhìŧ” you claim it to be. Ask how other police officers in locations/positions like mine how many crazies they’ve had to deal with who come up to their state’s Capitol and/or where their elected representatives work and tried something stupid, from threats to trying to break in, while spouting “bûllšhìŧ” about deranged conspiracies pushed by politicians and pundits on the right and about Second Amendment remedies. I’ve dealt with this šhìŧ in real flesh and blood life and so have other officers from other states who work in or around their state’s Capitol complex that I’ve gotten to know. Do we also get threats against Republicans? Yeah, we do. Have the scales been tipped the last two years to being more threats towards Democrats? Yeah, they have been.
.
And you know what, Jerome? I don’t give a dámņ if the Tucson shooter was set of by the rhetoric fully, just in part or not al all. THE RIGHT NEEDS TO GET IT THROUGH THEIR THICK FÙÇKÍNG SKULLS THAT CALLING FOR ACTS OF VIOLENCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND TO BE MET WITH A WINK AND A NUDGE ON THEIR PART.
.
There comes a point where you stop excusing the garbage or playing games over it and just fûçkìņg denounce it and end it already. And when you have a political party that as a whole is seeming to embrace garbage like this as campaign strategy from the East Coast to the West Coast and all points in between and political figures like Palin won’t condemn or denounce it (unless it’s in the most half assed way after the fact while playing CYA and poor little me the victim) then we’ve passed that point some time ago.
Let’s not forget Anthony Miller and two other GOP moderates, who resigned because of increasingly violent rhetoric from AZ Tea Party members:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-officials-fear-20110118,0,1006136.story
Amen, Jerry.
.
Just one other morsel of thought that I’ve seen virtually no one chew on:
.
Lunatic as he is, Jared Loughner employed exactly the kind of Second Amendment solution that a number of mainstream Right politicians and personalities have blithely advocated.
.
I am not saying that such comments were directly responsible for Loughner’s actions, or that people like Broden, Crabill, or Angle are to blame for what happened in Tuscon. But his act is one that Broden, Crabill, Angle, and others have suggested is not only acceptable, but perhaps inevitable and necessary if things do not go their way electorally or legislatively and “the Left” somehow becomes a threat.
.
I’m not expecting those people to apologize and renounce their earlier rhetoric, but will they refrain from such language in the future? And more importantly, will they stop emphatically painting Democrats/liberals, through distortion and outright lies, as the greatest threat to life and liberty since Hitler?
.
In his speech, Obama did not just call for civil discourse — he called for civil *and honest* discourse. Dishonest arguments about death panels, nascent communism, illegitimate governance by an American President not born in America, and other such paranoid bûllšhìŧ are more dangerous than any inflammatory rhetoric that hint at violent solutions to solve them. Will such ridiculous accusations end?
.
Sadly, I’m not seeing it anytime soon.
Sasha, the GOP is the Party of ‘No’, which I think answers all of your questions.
Considering some idiot wingnuts have been peddling the story that Obama fed “Applause” prompts to the crowd through the auditorium Jumbotron, I’m inclined to agree.
.
(Especially since, when confronted with the fact that the “prompts” were simply closed captioning, the same numbskulls either failed to retract the original accusation, or, at least in one case, argued that it being closed captioning somehow made it worse.)
Ugh.
.
Apparently someone placed a bomb along the route of the Spokane Martin Luther King Day parade.
.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/18/fbi-says-backpack-spokane-parade-route-was-bomb/
Putting aside the partisan gamesmanship for a moment, can anyone explain to me just how a new Fairness Doctrine would actually work?.
.
Would it apply only to self described news Shows or would it apply to shows that are personality driven (and this have the political bias of the personality)? Would Keith Olberman have to have on opponents of his views or would they just have to have on a show with someone who is the anti-Olbermann for an equal amount of time? What if Olberman covers 10 different issues in one hour–do they have to go out and find 10 people with opposing issues and tell them they have 6 minutes each for a response? How much time do they have to put on those views?
.
Do they have to make an honest effort to have the opposing views on at a time people are watching?
.
Who gets to pick the opposers? What if there are multiple opinions on an issue, how do they decide which is the “official” government sanctioned opposing view?
.
What if, say, Olbermann makes a few off the cuff snarks about the Birthers–does he now have to give one of them a platform for that foolishness? Who decides what is valid and what is the aforementioned foolishness?
.
How do you avoid having a Bill O’Rielly make some snark against 9/11 Truthers and then have on some guy who looks so crazy that Alan Moore goes “Ðámņ! He’s scary!” thus reinforcing even more the point he was trying to make? In other words, manipulating the Doctrine to do the exact opposite of its purpose.
.
Does the doctrine work against passive aggressive news reporting–say, devoting an entire hour to the “Obama is a Muslim” lie, with equal amounts of pro and con. It would be ok by the letter of the law since equal time was provided but the mere fact that it exists would be an inherent bias.
.
Will everything on the discovery channel have to include something from creationists? Everything on the history channel something from civil war revisionists?
.
If a fiction show has a controversial issue as a plot premise–I’m thinking about some dopey court drama that used the now mostly discredited anti-vaccine hystera in a story–does that require some reply from the other side?
.
I’m not trying to be deliberately negative or snarky here. I am genuinely curious as to how this works. When it was in force I don’t recall Donahue having to make sure every episode had two sides to the story, or there being a mandated anti-donahue. I seem to recall seeing some shlub talking for a few minutes about something right before the national anthem played and the station went off the air. So those who think a return to the fairness Doctrine will finally rid them of this troublesome Limbaugh or Fox news may be setting themselves up for disappointment. Or maybe proponents are arguing for a newer, improved, stronger, more fascist Doctrine, I don;t know. Since Obama opposes the return and the new House and Senate does not look like very fertile ground for FD proponents, I’m thinking any noise regarding it will be more for fundraising purposes.
You realize, Bill, that in the time it took you to post all that, you could have done five minutes worth of research and found out all the answers yourself, right?
.
PAD
Well, I tried, but I see a lot of folks saying that reinstating it would be a solution to the divisiveness or something along those lines, some actually claiming it would shut down Fox, some saying it would be used as censorship, et, etc.
.
As I recall the earlier fairness Doctrine it would do nothing of the sort–it was a joke. I don’t see why people are trying so hard to get it back.
.
Apparently my research skills are rusty so if anyone else has 5 minutes to spare and the interest to do so, let me know. Who knows, you might convince me of the wisdom of your position.
Bill,
.
The Fairness Doctrine allowed an FCC Committee the right to force adequate coverage to both sides of an issue of public importance, but not the obligation.
.
This does make it entirely arbitrary. Of course, if there were both Democratic and Republican appointees to the committee, in theory, they would balance out and argue amongst themselves whether or not a broadcast was “fair.”
.
The committee also had the power to foce a broadcast entity to provide access, either free or paid, to people or groups who wished to express a viewpoint. According to an FCC report from 1974, they felt that this was unnecessary because the broadcast entities of the time were voluntarilly providing this access.
.
The only parts that I, personally, would like to see reinstated are the “Personal Attack” and the “Political Editorial” rules. Basically, if a personal attack is made on someone (say, Sarah Palin) then that person is given a transcript of the broadcast at least a week in advance so that they may prepare a rebuttal, and give them the opportunity to respond on the air. So, no cutting people’s microphones just because they want to present facts that contradict your network’s narrative.
.
The Political Editorial rule states that if a network endorses or opposes a political candidate, then they have to notify that candidate and give them the opportunity to respond.
.
Personally, I’d like to see these two reinstated to help promote fairness. And, I’d like to be able to bar a program (or network) for using the term “news” to present easilly refuted “facts” or blatent lies. Would the “death pannel” myth have been anywhere near as wide spread if the news was forced to actually quote the bill? Would the general debate concerning the Health Care Reform Act have remained the same if the people complaining that the Act was 1,000+ pages long also had to say it was 36 point font, and that if reduced to only a slightly larger than average font of 12, and given reasonable margins such as 1″, it would be less than 150 pages?
.
I don’t think that the Fairness Doctrine is the answer. But, I do think that we need accountability in what the media presents as “news.”
.
Theno
Bill,
The fairness doctrine is not the same at the equal time rule. It doesn’t imply that there has to be any balance, just that the networks must spend at least “some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters” (from wikipedia). So I’d posit that pretty much every network, INCLUDING FOX, would already qualify. Since the networks were given such lattitude on how differing viewpoints were presented, and how much, if at least one or two shows a day had panalists from differing spectrums, it would qualify. Or, in the case of radio, since Democrats can call into Rush, they could argue that qualifies.
.
So yeah, I think that anyone expecting something different is hoping for a totally different, more authoritarian fairness doctine. I’ll be all for it, if we reinstate review and censorship boards for all tv, books, and movie. I mean, what’s good for the goose, right?
Thanks, that’s kind of what i was thinking. It seems like most of the talk about the FD is just red meat for the base–Democrats use it as something they can promise to their base (and never have to actually deliver) and Republicans use it to motivate their base against a phantom threat (that they will never have to actually fight). Ah, politics.
The Fairness Doctrine was and is one of the worst ideas of the past 100 years.
First off, what’s fair? Who’s definition of fair is going to be used? And how many points of opinion need to be considered to be considered fair?
Secondly from what I have read (and I am SURE i’ll be corrected if I am wrong) newspapers and the news will be exempt.
Thirdly, with no real designation of what fairness is there is no way to know if you are being fair enough to avoid a fine and this will actually chill free speech since no one will talk about anything controversial out of fear they will get a big fine from daddy government.
Fourth, I don’t the government reaching in and telling Sean Hannity how to run his program anymore than I want them to tell Keith Olbermann how to do his. Both cases are equally unfair.
Fifth, Until the government expands the fairness doctrine to include all books, internet sites, movies, documentaries, class curriculum, etc… this is nothing more than a play to silence talk radio and Fox News using the threat of force from the government.
Lastly Sixth, let the free market decide. If there’s a market for Sean Hannity’s conservative water carrying let the market decide. If people want to listen the idiocy of Keith Olbermann let the market decide. I doubt very much if Mr. David would like it if the government made him accept contrasting views to his own on his own blog.
And now let the flaming begin.
The real question I want to ask is this:
.
With their agenda so full, what with them trying to ban books from libraries all the time and boycotting TV shows with naughty scenes, how do Republicans can also find the time to worry about some doctrine threatening their free speech?
.
Or, how many miles tall some towering hypocrites can get?
.
“With their agenda so full, what with them trying to ban books from libraries all the time and boycotting TV shows with naughty scenes, how do Republicans can also find the time to worry about some doctrine threatening their free speech?”
.
That’s easy, Rene. They just split those responsibilities with the Democrats. That’s dámņëd near a 50/50 split on which direction that threat comes from in this country.
I doubt very much if Mr. David would like it if the government made him accept contrasting views to his own on his own blog.
And now let the flaming begin.
.
I think you’ll find you won’t get very far with passive/aggressive moves like “let the flaming begin.” Slapping a big old chip on your shoulder…doesn’t really impress anyone.
.
Your example misses the point of the Fairness Doctrine. Space on the Internet is more or less infinite. Broadcast channels are finite. So the notion is that those who were being entrusted with them had an obligation to use them responsibly.
.
Of course, I notice that you appear to be assuming that I favor the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t. I always thought it violated the First Amendment. How could it not? It’s congress making laws abridging freedom of the press. That’s just a no-brainer.
.
I didn’t advocate in favor of it. I simply said that the abolishing of it allowed the rise of wildly partisan attack machines such as Fox News that masquerade (badly) as a fair and balanced means of info dissemination. Which it did. And you know what? That’s the way that goes.
.
PAD
“Fourth, I don’t the government reaching in and telling Sean Hannity how to run his program anymore than I want them to tell Keith Olbermann how to do his. Both cases are equally unfair.
“
.
I don’t want the government telling either Hannity or Olbermann how to run their programs, either.
.
But, I would like to be able to tune in a “news” program, and receive accurate facts. I don’t mind having to go and do some independant research to clarify what is reported. But, I’d like for the reporting to at least in some way represent the truth.
.
Maybe some oversight committee who goes over a clip before broadcast to make sure that it isn’t edited to present exactly the opposite thing that the show is claiming it presents. You know, little things?
.
Theno
Jerry – Yes, there is a lot of Democrats who want to banish or change books or songs because of un-PC terms. There is also a lot of Democrat voters who defend freedom of speech no matter what. PAD himself, for instance.
.
Conversely, I haven’t seen any Republican sympathizers who are champions of freedom of speech to the point of constantly defending it for ideas that they don’t personally like. That is why I think Democrats come across as varied in their approach to the issue, while Republicans, by and large, don’t.
I have a question. Was James Earl Ray given MLK Day off as well?
Where? In Hëll? Yeah, for one day they turn the pineapple the other way.
.
(LITTLE NIKKI reference. (So shoot me, I laughed at some parts.)
James Earl Ray was alive for quite a few years after MLK day was instituted.
Yeah, but he was in prison, so he didn’t have a job to get the day off from, did he?
They have workers in prison. Who knowsif they follow federal holidays. That’s why I was asking.
Jerry Chandler,
For now just wow and kudos. You are passionate, intelligent and have made me think about things a bit. Thank you.
.
Thank you, Jerome. That means a lot; especially since after I hit the submit button I thought the tone of the thing would piss you off and regretted losing some of my restraint in there.
“And by the way: someone purporting to be a journalist putting forward the assertion that he can’t wrap himself around the idea of presenting both sides of a story…my God, that’s Journalism 101. The fact that you dismiss as impossible one of the fundamental tenets of journalism just speaks volumes about you, Jerome. It really does.”
.
That is not what I am doing at all. I just don’t feel the fairness doctrine truly did that Why? because just like the law, what is “fair” is subjective and interpreted by human beings. Since i am no more a “purported journalist” than you are a “purported comic book writer” let’s try this little exercise I learned early from an actual broadcast:
“Though Bush is gaining some momentum in the polls the past few weeks, he still has a long way to go”.
.
Now, take the exact same facts but change the wording:
“Though he still has a long way to go, Bush has gained some momentum in the polls the past few weeks.”
.
Pretty much the same, but the latter gives you a more positive impression of Bush’s chances.
.It is the first wording that was actually used, which left you with a more negative impression.
.
Do you see how difficult that would be to enforce? It is not a panacea. At all. And i feel based on my experience it would have the opposite effect and limit voices. You don’t have to agree with my POV PAD, but I wish you would at least try to understand where I’m coming from and respect it.
It is the first wording that was actually used, which left you with a more negative impression.
.
Noooo, the first wording left me with the impression that the writer understood Journalism 101, which is something I’m honestly not discerning from you, Jerome. The reason the sentence is written correctly is because the NEWS is that Bush is gaining in the polls. In every aspect of a story, you should be leading with the part that’s new. The fact that he had a long way to go, since I surmise it was still early in the election process, would hardly be news. “This just in: Election a long way from ending.”
.
I’ll tell you one thing, though: Your citing this as an example of putting a negative spin on Bush, as opposed to being what it was–a solidly written sentence from someone who clearly DID take Journalism 101–gives me a better understanding of the Right’s incessant harping about the liberal media. What any person with a fundamental understanding of how to write news would see as reasonable coverage is seen by the Right as unfair toward the Right’s interest.
.
The difference between you being a purported journalist and me being a purported comic book writer, Jerome, is…I understand the basic rules of how to write a comic book. You’re making it clear that you don’t understand the basic rules of how to write a simple newspaper story, and don’t even hold to the basic philosophies of at least trying to be even handed.
.
PAD
But he would make an ideal employee for a particular faux news organization.
““Though Bush is gaining some momentum in the polls the past few weeks, he still has a long way to go”.
.
Now, take the exact same facts but change the wording:
“Though he still has a long way to go, Bush has gained some momentum in the polls the past few weeks.”
.
Pretty much the same, but the latter gives you a more positive impression of Bush’s chances.
.It is the first wording that was actually used, which left you with a more negative impression.”
.
I just finished up a Language and Communications class, and was taught the exact opposite of what you present.
.
In my paper, I present a fact the following way: “Although Time Magazine says X, Newsweek claims Y.” I then spent the rest of the parragraph presenting other sources which supported Y over X.
.
My instructor said that I need to start with my premise, support it, and then present the contradictory source. I thought that the more stronger supported argument would be the more positive one. But, she said that the order was more important than the support.
.
So, in your example, the report is supporting the fact that Bush is gaining in the polls, and giving lip service to contradictory opinion (a positive impression). The second statement is saying that Bush has a long way to go, and giving lip service to the gain in polls (a negative impression).
.
In Journalism, I learned what Peter said. You start off with the new information, and follow up with the old. The new information being that Bush is gaining, the old being that he has a long way to go.
.
Neither argumentative writing nor journalism supports your claim that it should have been the second example. Although, I suppose if you were to say, “… which left me with a more negative impression,” you owuld be correct as you would be the authority on your own opinion.
.
theno
PAD,
“Was it Arizona as a whole? Or was it just their elected representative, John McCain?”
.
It was Arizona as a whole. They only capitulated when the NFL said they were going to take away a future awarded Super Bowl from them if they did not recognize it.
.
Which demonstrates the influence and power – and gobs of revenue derived from – of sports in our culture. At least this time it was used for good, in my opinion.
Hmmm. Our recollections of this differ. Perhaps some Arizonans could provide their memories; at the time in the 1980s when this was in the news I was living in Pennsylvania (as I assume you were as well) so neither of us has first-hand of what on there.
If Arizonans as a whole disliked the idea of an MLK holiday, then why did the previous governor create an MLK holiday? Was there widespread protest against this when he did so? I do recall a great deal of controversy accompanying Mechams rescinding of Babbitt’s order — and Mecham’s subsequent blocking of an MLK holiday.
If there was strong opposition to Babbitt’s order, then it would be fair to say the state was split. Which side of the split was larger would then be an interesting question to research.
But to say the state as a whole opposed the holiday? That there was no controversy in Arizona when Mecham stood in the way of permitting MLK day to be a holiday? Well, it’s possible your memory is right and mine is wrong on this — but I’d like to see a few citations, if you can provide them.
PAD,
Okay, this is getting silly. you know I obviously respect you as a comic writer or I wouldn’t be here. i told you to your face that at a con this past year you actually inspired me to write and more importantly to read different things from various perspectives besides comics to become a better writer.
.
I have taken that advice to heart. Thank you.
.
What I don’t understand is how you can get so personal with me when I never do the same to you. I never say, “How can someone who exhibits ______ in his writing be so _____” or anything of the sort.
.
Except for the few trolls that really get on my nerves, I always, always attempt to stick to the topic at hand.
.
Yet, once again, you seem to belittle my ability as a journalist simply because I
A.) Said that I don’t believe in the Fairness Doctrine as currently set up. I NEVER said I didn’t believe in presenting both sides. Of COURSE I do. But I feel the Fairness Doctrine actually did and would reduce the variety of opinions and voices heard and joined in the national debate. THAT is why I am against IT.
.
B.) In that same vein, I feel it is a bad idea because, again, who decides what is fair? If you have federally mandated guidelines that is As both sides point out, does this mean if someone is doing a story stating that the earth is round then we have to have an equal number of flat-Earthers?
.
C.) I also stated that such a thing as what would universally be considered fair is impossible, because these stories are written by human beings. That is correct. That does not mean we should not strive for it and come as close to it as possible. Which is always my goal, whether I’m doing a hard news story, a sports story or reviewing a comic book.
.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat.
Sasha,
“In his speech, Obama did not just call for civil discourse — he called for civil *and honest* discourse.”
.
His speech was one of his best. he could have played to his base and started pointing fingers but didn’t for which I give him props.
.
That said, if he really wants to set an honest tone, maybe he can retract some of the bûllšhìŧ he has peddled the past couple years, everything from having Latinos fearing they will be stopped walking along having an ice cream cone and asked to show their papers to doctors performing unnecessary removals of tonsils and amputations of feet as reasons why we needed health care reform.
.
” Dishonest arguments about death panels,”
.
Nope. Once bureaucrats get involved in cost-cutting, they will determine who is worthy of care. And more than any Big Business, if the cost ids worth it. see recent controversies of approving drugs that could save lives.
.
” nascent communism,”
Didn’t Newsweek declare “We’re all socialists now”?
.
” illegitimate governance by an American President not born in America,”
.
The Left keeps bringing this up but name a legitimate news source or commentator that is pushing this? Even Coulter feels the Birthers are nuts and wasting their time.
.
You’re obsessed with something only a few dopes on the internet believe. Most people don’t believe Obama was not born in America. many have started to believe he does not view America other presidents have.
.
” Will such ridiculous accusations end?”
.
Like you accusing a significant portion of the Right of believing paranoid bûllšhìŧ I hope so.
“Squak! Right wing talking points, right wing talking points! Squak!”
“… having Latinos fearing they will be stopped walking along having an ice cream cone and asked to show their papers …”
.
Did you read the law?
.
In that very law, it makes being an illegal immigrant a misdemeanor.
.
In that very law, it gives police the authority to arrest, not detain – arrest, a person for suspicion of a misdemeanor.
.
In that very law, it gives citizens the ability to sue the state, the city, and the individual officer for up to $3,000.00 each should an officer fail to follow up on a report of a suspected illegal immigrant to the satisfaction of the citizen.
.
So, what you call “bûllšhìŧ” is in actuality Arizona State Law.
.
“Nope. Once bureaucrats get involved in cost-cutting, they will determine who is worthy of care. And more than any Big Business, if the cost ids worth it. see recent controversies of approving drugs that could save lives.”
.
I work in the health care industry.
.
The Department of Defense and the VA always pay their bills. Whatever the doctor prescribed, they will pay it. If Laura, down the hall, calls them about a delinquent invoice, all they need is proof that that the pharmaceutical was delivered.
.
Private hospitals and pharmacies, on the other hand, have a number of payment stalling methods in order to get the money that the insurance companies are not paying them for the treatment given. I know, personally, of an instance in California where a man’s insurance decided that the operation he had was cosmetic, even though the doctor felt that without the operation today the man would be facing a life-or-death situation within the next five to seven years. The insurance didn’t pay, and when pressured they simply dropped his coverage. This put the hospital in arrears. And, as it was a small, locally owned hospital, it nearly went out of business.
.
If only there had been a law that stated that once you accept payment for a service (like insurrance), you have to provide that service, even if it inconveniences the service company.
.
Theno
.
Theno has already pointed out that Obama wasn’t bûllšhìŧŧìņg about Latinos considering what the law actually says.
.
The thing about tonsils and amputations is a new one on me. I’ll have to look into it.
.
[Sigh. Any way we can remove my botched previous post, PAD?]
.
Theno has already pointed out that Obama wasn’t exaggerating considering what the law actually says.
.
The thing about tonsils and amputations is a new one on me. I’ll have to look into it.
.
.
Wrong. The argument was that end-of-life counseling provisions in the ACA were actually death panels and got so much play and traction, not only was this commonsense provision removed from the bill, it was recently nixed again when Obama tried to bring it back. There’s a reason why “death panels” was awarded PoliFact’s 2009 Lie of the Year.
.
Relatedly, the bûllšhìŧ claim that the ACA is a “government takeover of healthcare” is PoliFact’s 2010 Lie of the Year.
.
And as Theno has pointed out, we already have death panels, and they’re run by private for-profit insurance companies.
.
.
Setting aside the fact that socialism does not equal communism, the bûllšhìŧ suggestion is that Obama’s policies are akin to that of Soviet Russia.
.
”
.
“Obsessed”? I bring up the topic in a sentence fragment and you conclude I’m obsessed? More than “only a few dopes” buy into the birther nonsense (27% or Americans) and most of them are Republicans (41%, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html).
.
The birthers are nuts, but that hasn’t stopped Repubs from playing into their beliefs and thereby giving their lunacy legitimacy. GOP legislators have proposed legislation that directly springs from and feeds into this idiocy, and conservative commentators have played coy with issue by stating that although they believe Obama is an American, there are still legitimate questions. (And even then, they hedge by saying that they “believe” he’s American rather than unequivocally affirming it.)
.
And that comment about “many have started to believe he does not view America other presidents have”? I’m assuming you refer the ridiculous assertion that Obama does not believe that America is exceptional, despite the very speech in question stating otherwise. Again, a bûllšhìŧ claim created and forwarded by the Right.
.
”
.
Sadly, its not mere accusation, it’s fact. From a Harris Poll taken last year (http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=37050&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963):
.
“faux news”
Ah, Craig, glad to see you could bring your Magic Eight Ball so you could contribute to the discussion.
Glad to see you’re still being a right-wing nutjob who can’t think for himself.
This is what i’m talking about. Craig doesn’t want to debate the issue he would rather attack the person. Where’s the civil and honest discourse?
Where’s the civil and honest discourse?
.
Don’t give me this šhìŧ.
.
Awhile back, I called Palin a crybaby. Jerome called me sexist.
.
Jerry calls – and continues to call – Palin a crybaby, and Jerome let’s it go. Why? Because Jerome likes Jerry. How quaint: to decide whether one is sexist (or, presumably, racist, bigoted, etc) on how well you like said person.
.
So, no, I’m not going to make excuses for calling BS on a complete BS artist. When Jerome wants to ride my ášš and mine alone for saying the same things that everybody else is saying, I’m going to give it back in spades.
.
But then, PAD had it right when he said this a few days ago in the ‘Dear Ms. Palin’ thread:
“Okay, I was mistaken: Don’t think for yourself, Jerome. Because apparently when you do, you get it wrong.”
.
Can’t imagine why he didn’t go after PAD with a “Magic Eight Ball” comment after that.
“Mecham’s stand on this was controversial not only outside Arizona, it was controversial within Arizona as well. Mecham was removed from office, and soon after he was gone the state instituted celebration of the MLK holiday.”
.
True. But it was the tick-tick-tick of losing the money and prestige of hosting the Super Bowl that finally made this happen. Ah, the NFL. Powerful enough to get the last state that refused to honor the holiday to change it’s mind.
You may be right. I just checked, and while Mecham was removed from office in 1988 the MLK holiday was not re-instated until 1993 — following, as you say, the NFL boycott.
So it was not “soon after” Mecham’s removal, as I’d mistakenly thought. And clearly there must have been other major obstacles, besides Mecham, to delay approval for 5 years after Mecham’s removal.
From the Washington Post’s obituary for Evan Mecham:
.
.
“Shortly after taking office in 1987, Mr. Mecham rescinded the state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which enraged state workers, prompted public protests and caused organizers of national conventions to steer clear of the state. Mr. Mecham, who said the holiday was implemented illegally and required a public vote, poured fuel on the controversy by opining that King ‘didn’t deserve’ the holiday.
.
“Further, he said there was nothing wrong with calling black children ‘pickaninnies,’ a statement that prompted an Arizona bumper sticker that said, ‘Pickaninny: What we did for Governor.’ ”
.
.
Which supports my earlier claim that there was significant opposition in Arizona to Mecham’s action.
.
How widespread this opposition was — and whether it was more widespread than opposition to having a King holiday — is something I still don’t know. There were probably opinion polls done on this question at the time, though, so if anyone can locate one I’d be curious to see what the split was on this issue.
Peter David:
“Of course, I notice that you appear to be assuming that I favor the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t. I always thought it violated the First Amendment. How could it not? It’s congress making laws abridging freedom of the press. That’s just a no-brainer.
.
I didn’t advocate in favor of it. I simply said that the abolishing of it allowed the rise of wildly partisan attack machines such as Fox News that masquerade (badly) as a fair and balanced means of info dissemination. Which it did. And you know what? That’s the way that goes.”
It was not my intention to say what side you were on as far as the Fairness Doctrine. I was trying to make the larger point that those who express themselves for a living either in writing or through speech would not in all likelihood be in favor of the fairness doctrine. I was not as eloquent in expressing that as I should have been. In this instance I apologize to Mr David.
“Glad to see you’re still being a right-wing nutjob who can’t think for himself.”
.
Right. because anyone who who passionately holds conservative views you don’t agree with – or probably can’t comprehend – is a “nutjob”. Nice to see you’re interested in civil discourse, as usual. see if you can come up with a better r4esponse than “You started it”. I’ll give you a week.
.
Unless you just decided to parrot our host, in which case pot meet kettle.
.
I’ve worked for the oldest African-American paper in the country, small town papers, sports papers and one of the largest – in the liberal city of Philadelphia. I have always, always been complimented for being by y editors – and those of the bio comics I do on liberal people – of being evenhanded.
.
i’ll take their opinions and compliments over your immature, narrow worldview thanks.
Yes, your oh-so mature, wide worldview includes excusing away everything Sarah Palin does, regurgitating Fox News, and showing bias with accusations of sexism against those you do not like.
.
But then, I see you do not refute that last statement. Nor PAD’s accusations that there’s not an original thought to be had from you.
.
Much like Palin, when the going gets tough, you go and have a little cry. Yeah, I can see why you find her so appealing.
We keep hearing about all this right wing anger, and all I’m seeing is massive, irrational, anger here from the left? Own any guns Craig? Should we be worried?
and all I’m seeing is massive, irrational, anger here from the left?
.
I’m starting to wonder how many names Jerome plans to post under, what with how many ‘individuals’ have singled my posts out this past week.
.
And no, I don’t own any guns, because unlike so many on the Right, I don’t “cling to guns and religion”. I don’t cling to lies and stupidity.
.
But then, I also don’t recall using any gun/violent rhetoric in my comments, so I don’t know why you’d be worried. Unlike so many on the Right, I haven’t reminded anybody of how great the 2nd Amendment is, and how badly it needs to be used on my fellow Americans simply because I disagree with them. Which, as we all know, it’s quite acceptable discourse by those on the Right.
.
I’m glad to see though that you’ve also responded equally to, say, Jerry Chandler’s ‘massive, irrational, anger’ posts as well.
.
Oh, wait, you didn’t. So I really do wonder what makes my posts so attractive to so many of you.
and all I’m seeing is massive, irrational, anger here from the left?
.
Oh, and Joel, you’ll be happy to know that these posts provide a wonderful microcosm of American politics in general right now: the right-wingers pick out a ‘target’ and attack it incessantly with their singular, goose-stepping mentality, while the left-wingers stand back and watch.
I’m pretty sure Jerry Wall has established himself here long enough not to be a likely candidate for sock-puppetry.
.
If you’re going to decry extremist rhetoric while excoriating political opponents for “singular, goose-stepping mentality” you will probably find more than one person willing to call you out on it.
Yup, I’m a sock puppet. I’ve only been posting here under my real name for years. There are other comic retailers who’ve posted here who know me personally. I’ve talked about my comic shop I own in Oklahoma. But yeah, I’m a fake.
.
You wanna know why you’re single out. Because I’ve noticed for a long time when I see your name and post, it’s “oh, here comes the angry hate rant”. I can count on, when I see your post, plenty of uses of “wingnuts”, “faux news”, “teabaggers”, “bushitler”, and pretty much every other KOS buzzward. I’m not sure where this constant viotral and hatred comes from, but it sure seems you’re cleaning off the spittle from your monitor. How many keyboards do you go through a month, pounding on those keys so hard?
.
But don’t worry, when the day comes, I’m sure all your neighbors will still describe you as “he was always sooo quiet”.
.
Yeah, I know I’ve seen Wall’s posts here for years now and he’s not always taken the same side in an issue as Jerome. Not a sock.
when I see your post, plenty of uses of “wingnuts”, “faux news”, “teabaggers”, “bushitler”, and pretty much every other KOS buzzward.
.
I’ve used wingnuts, I’ve used faux news. Both apply when Jerome is one if his ‘I’ll just repeat everything said on Fox News’ rants, which he has been on again in this thread. Yes, in the past, I’ve used teabaggers.
.
But “bushitler”? You will find proof in my comments to back that up. Because I’ve never used the last, and I visit Daily Kos as often as I visit Drudge; ie, never.
.
And I look forward to your comments next time somebody comes out of the woodwork using some of those great buzzwords from the Right, “libtards” and such. But I’m not holding my breath.
Sorry, Craig — this time you’re incorrect. Jerry Wall’s been here for eons.
.
There are a lot of things I disagree with Jerome about very, very deeply, and there are some debating tactics he’s used that I find a bit dishonest, but I’ve never known him or even suspected him to resort to sock puppets.
Uh, we’re on another, fun thread but since you can’t seem to let this go or stop being delusional and petty, here goes:
.
“I’m starting to wonder how many names Jerome plans to post under, what with how many ‘individuals’ have singled my posts out this past week.”
.
Uh, I only post under my own name. Maybe the others can speak for themselves or you can have PAD confirm that or Glenn, unless you’re determined to continue sounding delusional and paranoid. You love bashing people and then when someone responds in a strong manner you cry about being “singled out” That’s called being thin-skinned.
.
“And no, I don’t own any guns, because unlike so many on the Right, I don’t “cling to guns and religion”.”
.
Wow. talk about an original thought. And people don’t legitimately use guns for sport, hunting or self-protection EVER right?
.
“I don’t cling to lies and stupidity.”
.
Sure you do. Like a frightened baby to it’s momma. And every person who believes in religion is clinging to it and stupid? Congratulations. You’ve just bashed everyone from Mother Teresa to Alcoholics Anonymous members (who don’t believe in a specific religion but a higher Power to give them strength. because of course you are so much wiser and stronger and better than all of them.
.
“But then, I also don’t recall using any gun/violent rhetoric in my comments, so I don’t know why you’d be worried. Unlike so many on the Right, I haven’t reminded anybody of how great the 2nd Amendment is, and how badly it needs to be used on my fellow Americans simply because I disagree with them. Which, as we all know, it’s quite acceptable discourse by those on the Right.”
.
Blah blah blah blah blah
.
“I’m glad to see though that you’ve also responded equally to, say, Jerry Chandler’s ‘massive, irrational, anger’ posts as well.”
.
Because Jerry Chandler’s responses are well thought out, mature, rational and documented for starters.He actually makes people think. He provides both food for thought and information.He provide both unintentional and intentional humor. Almost every word out of your cyber mouth is sarcasm disguised as an argument, left-wing cliches, disdain for those who hold a different worldview than you and the intellectual equivalent of a child saying “He started it” and “But it’s okay when he does it, mommy?” and “You too!”
.
Comparing your arguments to Jerry Chandler’s or some of the other more thoughtful reasoned and mature personalities here – like Luigi – would be like comparing a marshmallow to a baked alaska. And, just so you know, Craig, that’s a desert not a reference to Palin’s home state.
.
“Oh, wait, you didn’t. So I really do wonder what makes my posts so attractive to so many of you.”
.
Because they’re the literary equivalent of a child licking windows and a dog licking it’s balls in public. You try to ignore it but just feel you have to say something. And really, your paranoia and delusions of grandeur are showing.
.
ALL you have is anger and sarcasm and disdain for others who dare disagree with you. Do you get any enjoyment out of life at all, Craig? And is there a reason you take everything said so personally? You seem to have actual hate for certain groups that you lump together – Christians, right-wingers – and for individuals who disagree with you on a blog. That’s really no way to live.
Actually, what would be the point of commenting on a dog licking its balls in public? It’s not likely I could convince him of the error of his ways.
You love bashing people and then when someone responds in a strong manner you cry about being “singled out” That’s called being thin-skinned.
.
So apparently I’m on par with Palin. Yet, you don’t say this about her, so you’re also a hypocrite.
.
But then, as I’ve had to point out time after time, you love bashing me and singling me out. Doesn’t matter how many posts are made, how many people say the exact same thing, my post is the one that gets your attention.
.
Yet, you can’t even so much as acknowledge that you just can’t resist responding to me.
.
Because Jerry Chandler’s responses are well thought out, mature, rational and documented for starters.
.
With all due respect to Jerry, some of his responses in this thread are not exactly all of the above. Yet, nobody else has called him out on it. But, you like him, so that’s ok, right?
.
And really, your paranoia and delusions of grandeur are showing.
.
I needed a good laugh this morning. And if there’s one thing you’re good at, it’s providing that.
“But, you like him, so that’s ok, right?”
.
Might be something to that. He’s not an ášš all the time.
Old Testament laws are specific when it comes to use of lethal force in self-defense.
.
Well, this does go back to the picking and choosing of aspects of one’s religion that many, not just Christians, end up doing.
.
To me, defense against any assailant certainly falls into that category.
.
Of course. Everybody should have the right to defend themselves.
.
But often you get complete stonewalling if you ask why anybody needs an assault rifle or 30-round extended clip to defend themselves and their home. For many, there’s no middle ground, and if you dare bring it up, you’re accused of trying to take away all guns.
.
A perfect illustration of this is the fact that ammunition sales went up quite a bit after Obama won the election. There was instant fear that guns and bullets were going to be banned overnight. Yet, this has never has been the case.
.
“With all due respect to Jerry, some of his responses in this thread are not exactly all of the above. Yet, nobody else has called him out on it. But, you like him, so that’s ok, right?”
.
Actually I have been. Bill Mulligan did years ago when I first started posting here. Jerome has in the past as well. Various other people have over time as well. One recent example that I can specifically remember was back when Obama won the Nobel. I jumped Alan Coil over his remarks about so much of the “hate” on the subject being about Obama’s race. He said something about it and I agreed with him that I was a tad out of line.
.
I will also admit when I’m wrong. I’m never wrong, but I’ll freely admit to being wrong if it ever happens.
.
“Might be something to that. He’s not an ášš all the time.”
.
That’s right. Because 95% of the time is still not all the time. So there!
I’m never wrong
.
Says the man with the avatar that’s ten kinds of wrong, what with the metal bikini top and all. 😉
.
Jet Jaguar is one of the underrated greats in Japanese monster movies. He should have gotten his own series dámņ it!
And every person who believes in religion is clinging to it and stupid? Congratulations.
.
I don’t believe Craig made that claim. If he did, then I’d disagree with him as well. If not, you’re setting up a straw man.
.
As for me … certainly I don’t believe that every person who subscribes to a religion fits that description, or even that most do. I do, however, think that as a general rule those who crow most loudly about how positively Christian they are are generally using that claim to hide a host of deep flaws. Religion is often very productive when you’re using it as a guide to live your life; it’s nearly always destructive when you’re using as a guide to tell others how to live theirs. Guess which party holds a near-monopoly on the latter case. (Hint: it includes a governor who just apologized for basically saying he wants to convert the entire state.)
.
Thank you, Tim, for putting it better than I probably ever could.
.
And yes, in the wake of the shooting in Arizona we have a new governor who basically says that if you’re not Christian you’re not good enough for him. There are also those that think we need more guns and gun rights, and that to even bring up gun control is simply politics, rather than rightfully wondering why anybody needs a 30-round extended clip for any reason. That’s the kind of clinging I’m talking about.
.
But then, as I previously pointed out, there’s such an incredible contradiction between religion and gun rights that, yes, I can only shake my head at how anybody can reconcile the two. Maybe that’s part of it – often time they simply don’t bother to try.
.
As for the whole sock puppets thing, I didn’t think people would take that so seriously. I tend to forget that tone doesn’t carry in text, something I really should know better about by now.
I also don’t have a problem with religion per se, but with outdated notions of proselytizing that, frankly, don’t have a place anymore in a world with respect for other people’s private lives.
.
Yes, gun rights can contradict Christian faith, but I see an even bigger contradiction between Christianity and the death penalty, but I can only shrug. The archetypical American Conservative/Liberal divide on the various issues only really makes sense in terms of Stern Daddy/Nurturing Mommy parenting.
.
Stern Dad likes his kids to have strong religion and to protect themselves. Nurturing Mom likes her kids to play nice with others, respect different viewpoints, and ask for the help of a nice adult when in trouble.
“But then, as I previously pointed out, there’s such an incredible contradiction between religion and gun rights that, yes, I can only shake my head at how anybody can reconcile the two. Maybe that’s part of it – often time they simply don’t bother to try.”
.
.
There isn’t a huge divide between gun rights, and religion, if by “religion” you mean Christianity. Old Testament laws are specific when it comes to use of lethal force in self-defense. Additionally, when Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek.” He was referring to handling insults, not defending your life.
.
Also, Paul instructs Timothy that man who does not provide for his family is, “worse than an unbeliever.” To me, defense against any assailant certainly falls into that category. If men come into my house, rape my wife, and murder my two year old son while I stand helpless I have failed to adequately provide for my family.
“There are also those that think we need more guns and gun rights, and that to even bring up gun control is simply politics, rather than rightfully wondering why anybody needs a 30-round extended clip for any reason. ”
.
There are reasons to have extended magazines (and there is a difference between a clip and a magazine) like certain competition circuits where people want to keep their reloading time to a minimum.
.
As someone who has received a concealed carry license, I don’t use a 30 round magazine because it’s hard to conceal. However, when I carry my 9mm Beretta Px4, I two extra magazines with me, for a total of 51 rounds. Why? Because, God forbid, if I ever do find myself in a lethal force situation, I’m already in a statistical anomaly, and I want as much ammo on hand as possible. One of the survivors of the infamous Miami Gunfight put it best when he said, “You can never have too much ammo.”
.
But this is really all irrelevant. Where does “need” fit into it? And who are you to be the arbiter of what people need and don’t need? Who NEEDS a Corvette? Who NEEDS to keep an iguana in their house? People already have these items. If you want to take them away, the onus is not on the law abiding citizen to justify keeping it. You have to explain why your depriving him of his property.
.
“Where does “need” fit into it? And who are you to be the arbiter of what people need and don’t need? “
.
Exactly where it fits into it right now. Our governing bodies already look at the various firearms, ammunition and other weapons that go boom real sweet and decide what does and doesn’t need to be sold in the public square.
.
We don’t sell fully automatic assault rifles to just anybody who ponies up the cash. There are some rounds that you don’t get to play with unless you’re law enforcement or military. There are some seriously explosive kill power toys that you just don’t get to own period and only get to play with if you work for Uncle Sam. We already decide, based on what is or isn’t needed VS public safety, what toys you or I get to play with.
.
Personally, I think the 30 round clips are excessive and unnecessary. This argument that’s been floating around the public square the last few days that not having a 30 round magazine is bothersome or inconvenient for gun owners when on the range because they have to change clips more often or reload more often is asinine. I’m a gun person. I can feel the slide lock back, drop my mag, snap a new one in, release the slide and be shooting again in under a second. I can reload all three of my mags in under two minutes when I’m not even rushing to do it. And I have never, ever been on the range with anyone who had a hissy because they needed to change mags or reload their mags. If you’re sending several hundred rounds down range it’s just something you have to do. And it gives you time to bs with your friends while someone else is shooting.
.
Now, just what does a 30 round clip do? Well, if you’re not a gun person and you don’t train with your firearm then it lets you shoot a lot more people than you otherwise could. Several active shooter subjects who were taken down by bystanders have been taken down when they had to change their mags. The idiots that do stuff like the Tucson shooting get a gun and a high capacity mag and don’t really drill themselves with the weapon for magazine changes, stovepipes, double feeds, etc. They just count on being able to shoot a lot of rounds at people before having to change mags.
.
10 or 14 rounds in a mag as the max really isn’t that unreasonable. And that as the max isn’t going to inconvenience a gun owner who actually learns how to use the weapon while it will decrease the number of rounds that idiots like the Tucson shooter can send at people before having to stop and fumble with the thing trying to change mags.
Jerry Wall,
“Yup, I’m a sock puppet. I’ve only been posting here under my real name for years.”
.
Rest of your post was dead-on. Of course, now Craig will be convinced I’m posting to myself, buy what can you do?
.
“Of course, now Craig will be convinced I’m posting to myself, buy what can you do?”
.
Post under the name “Walter” or “Peanut” and argue with yourself.
Sasha,
Here’s the tonsil comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhNeGYYPgIE
Here’s the amputation comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVieMfb2SI&feature=fvw
Thanx. I’ll look at those when I get home tonight.
How soon do you know about surprises and details. I take it you won’t tell us (and I don’t want you to) of who dies in Fantastic Four, but do you know, get e-mails saying “Don’t use _______ after March because he is really an imposter during this period.”
Thanks,
Wade
Tim Lynch,
How are you? here is my response:
.
“And every person who believes in religion is clinging to it and stupid? Congratulations.
.
I don’t believe Craig made that claim. If he did, then I’d disagree with him as well. If not, you’re setting up a straw man.”
.
Okay, here is Craig’s quote: .”And no, I don’t own any guns, because unlike so many on the Right, I don’t “cling to guns and religion”. I don’t cling to lies and stupidity.”
.
the rest of his post is about guns. Therefore, is not reasonable to infer that he is equating religion with lies and stupidity. seeing as how he is talking about people clinging to religion, talks later about guns and talks about clinging to lies and stupidity? Is that that wrong of an interpretation? Especially given the disdain and contempt he seems to have for Christians in virtually every post he makes?
.
“As for me … certainly I don’t believe that every person who subscribes to a religion fits that description, or even that most do.”
.
Good.
“I do, however, think that as a general rule those who crow most loudly about how positively Christian they are are generally using that claim to hide a host of deep flaws.”
.
On this I actually think you are somewhat correct, believe it or not. Christians are taught not to “leave their light under a bushel.” at the same time, they are not supposed to, say, go to Church so they can brag about how superior they are.
.
There is a story in the Bible that makes the point, actually. A man is bragging about how pious he is and how much he gives to the church WHILE PRAYING TO GOD. In the middle of his monologue he spots a man in raggedy clothes with, shall we say, obvious flaws. he then goes on to tell God how much more worthy he is than the “wretch” in the back of the Church.
.
The “wretch” has flaws but is simply praying quietly. The moral, of course, is which man is God smiling down on more. The one beating his chest or the one praying humbly and trying to be genuine?
.
“Religion is often very productive when you’re using it as a guide to live your life; it’s nearly always destructive when you’re using as a guide to tell others how to live theirs.”
.
This is where there is a grey area to me. All religions contain rules and talk about living a moral life. Is that not what laws are? Prohibiting and deterring that which we feel is immoral and unjust in a society? MANY CHURCHES IN GENERAL AND BLACK CHURCHES IN PARTICULAR PREACH “SOCIAL JUSTICE” TO THEIR FOLLOWERS. Are they wrong for doing so? many of the same churches preached for the advancement of civil rights? Were they wrong for doing so? Is the wall of separation of church and state to be so rigid we are to shut people up from speaking out on what they feel is just?
.
And as far as telling people how to live their lives, it seems to me the government has much more influence in that regard the last four decades or so. From Transfats to pedicabs to Four Loko to Hapy Meals to countless other examples – oh yeah, ObamaCare! -the government is constantly telling people how to live their lives, more than any pastor ever could.
I don’t believe Craig made that claim. If he did, then I’d disagree with him as well. If not, you’re setting up a straw man.”
.
Okay, here is Craig’s quote:
(quote deleted for brevity)
.
the rest of his post is about guns. Therefore, is not reasonable to infer that he is equating religion with lies and stupidity.
.
Only if you see that sentence as somehow modifying the first one. I don’t. I saw the four items — guns, religion, lies and stupidity — as separate, not a one-to-one mapping.
.
Religion is often very productive when you’re using it as a guide to live your life; it’s nearly always destructive when you’re using as a guide to tell others how to live theirs.
.
This is where there is a grey area to me. All religions contain rules and talk about living a moral life. Is that not what laws are?
.
No.
.
Laws, ideally, are designed to ensure the smooth and contented functioning of a whole SOCIETY, or a community. They are not supposed to be a guide to morality. The phrase “do not try to legislate morality” has been used by both sides of the aisle for good reason; morality is personal and should not be something people try to impose by law.
.
At most, laws are there to promote ETHICS — but ethics and morals are not the same thing.
.
MANY CHURCHES IN GENERAL AND BLACK CHURCHES IN PARTICULAR PREACH “SOCIAL JUSTICE” TO THEIR FOLLOWERS. Are they wrong for doing so?
.
No, not in my view — but again, “justice” is not “morals.” It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s the difference between the societal or community level and the personal level.
.
And as far as telling people how to live their lives, it seems to me the government has much more influence in that regard the last four decades or so. From Transfats to pedicabs to Four Loko to Hapy Meals to countless other examples
.
And guess what? I disagree with most or all of those as well. (And as far as this “last four decades or so,” there’s a little thing called Prohibition that would like a word…)
.
– oh yeah, ObamaCare!
.
Aaaaaaaand we’re back to plonk-worthy buzzwords. Considering how much you’ve been laying into Craig for stock phrases, you’re awfully quick yourself to use equally stupid ones. You can make a better argument without them anyway.
The issue of ethics and morality is an interesting one and one that I sometimes have difficulty really wrapping my head around.
.
Are laws against the use of illegal drugs legislating ethics or morality? If ethics than why are laws trying to ban abortion usually framed as legislating morality?
.
It seems as though a lot of it comes down to the intent–someone who seeks to ban pornography because they are offended as a christian is seen as legislating morality while the exact same law advocated by an atheistic feminist would not be judged the same way. I think.
.
Me, I would LOVE to get the opportunity to trim the lawbooks down to the bare essentials. I’d rather live in a world of too much freedom and poor decisions than one where the phrase “there ought to be a law!” has achieved the level of official policy.
I now distrust anyone with a too straighforward oppinion on drug use or abortion.
.
Those two issues are so thorny because, on one hand, you can make a pretty good case for them being a matter of personal freedom: people should be able to own their own bodies.
.
On the other hand, drug addiction can be so damaging to the family and friends, in many painful and prolongued ways, that I can see why it could be considered a crime. I’ve suffered from an alcoholic father and a brother addicted to crack.
.
And abortion. How can anyone be sure about anything regarding abortion, when both sides have excellent arguments? I hate the idea of a woman forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I hate the idea of potential life extirpated before even the chance to get to know life. Call me coward, but being unsure about the whole abortion issue strikes me as the only possible humane and compassionate position.
Are laws against the use of illegal drugs legislating ethics or morality? If ethics than why are laws trying to ban abortion usually framed as legislating morality?
.
I’d say it’s a question primarily of how much it interferes with the working of the community. I personally think it’s very difficult to justify making laws against USING illegal drugs. Selling them — that one’s easy.
.
In terms of abortion, I absolutely think that’s trying to legislate morality. It’s about as personal a choice you can get. (Why am I suddenly hearing “The Life of Brian” in my head?)
.
It seems as though a lot of it comes down to the intent–someone who seeks to ban pornography because they are offended as a christian is seen as legislating morality while the exact same law advocated by an atheistic feminist would not be judged the same way. I think.
.
I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily intent so much as it is the arguments used. A lot of the particularly obsessed hyper-religious folk find it impossible to argue in ways other than “it’s against the rules of my particular deity,” and that argument is and should be rejected. If you can make an argument that’s pointing to very clear harm, I think laws are a lot easier to justify.
Call me coward, but being unsure about the whole abortion issue strikes me as the only possible humane and compassionate position.
.
Morally, I totally agree with you. Legally, I think that’s the reason why the pro-choice position makes a vast amount more sense; if I’m conflicted about the issue myself, there’s no way in hëll I’m going to take it upon myself to decide what someone ELSE is going to do.
Yes. I’m too conflicted about it to support a law forbidding it.
I agree that it’s a grey area, perhaps the biggest grey area of our times. It’s not grey to me, since I am a passionate humanist secularist with no strong beliefs about the afterlife. But it’s a grey area for many.
.
Living a virtuous life according to most religions includes worrying about the state of everybody’s immortal souls. Meaning there is justification for interfering with other people’s decisions, for their own good. I totally understand, even if I hate this sort of thinking.
.
What I can say to that is that, even from the perspective of someone whose only goal is to save people’s souls, authoritarian methods are more prone to alienate possible converts, or to result in insincere converts. Fear-based faith is a great source of neurosis for individuals and even whole societies.
“And abortion. How can anyone be sure about anything regarding abortion, when both sides have excellent arguments? I hate the idea of a woman forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I hate the idea of potential life extirpated before even the chance to get to know life. Call me coward, but being unsure about the whole abortion issue strikes me as the only possible humane and compassionate position.”
.
It’s not that I don’t feel for women who experience an unwanted pregnancy. There are a multitude of crisis pregnancy centers to assist with just occurence. It’s that I believe that life begins at conception. To me abortion isn’t just the snuffing of a potential life, it’s the extermination of a baby.
Malcolm, it’ also my personal belief that life starts at conception, and why I’d urge any woman I know not to have an abortion if they asked my oppinion, and would probably never agree to it if the child was mine.
.
Though I agree that the fetus is alive (undoubtly) I can’t feel certain that the fetus is an individual. I don’t feel certain also that the fetus deserves the same legal protections that individuals enjoy.
.
If I were forced to say where I stand, I’d say abortion is immoral, but shouldn’t be illegal. And I’m certain that harassing women desiring an abortion or who’ve had an abortion only makes a horrible situation even more horrible.
I don’t know if it has been mentioned by anyone else, but the PBS series, Pioneers of Television, episode on Science Fiction aired here in New York on WLIW last Saturday and includes an interview with Nichelle Nichols talking about meeting Martin Luther King.
The episode will repeat three times this week starting at 1:00 a.m. tonight. Hopefully, it will also air in other areas. The episode discusses Lost in Space, Star Trek and the Twilight Zone. Probably no new information to anyone here but the discussion of Martin Luther King was especially interesting given the holiday.
I saw that. I’ve seen Nichelle tell that story before, but every time she does, it’s like the first. She just seems to light up when she talk.
.
PAD