AZ Congresswoman has been shot, many others dead

[Vraith]

In fact, most news these days isn't so much "news" as it is partisan political pontification; sometimes, they don't even try to hide the fact that they are partisan!

I actually don't think our politics or our media are getting more polarized. I think they're getting more honest. I think more people are saying out loud what they have always thought.

I agree...parallel, in some ways, to a whole host of realities we always ignored: physical/sexual/psychological abuse and violence, both how common it is and who is usually responsible, issues of race, class, gender, culture, etc. Admittedly, some people take advantage/manipulate/bowdlerize/re-contextualize/accuse for various reasons. [almost all based on fear or quests for personal power...which are basically the same thing to me]. But, on the whole, I'd rather see these things out in the light---even if some peoples lights have color gels---than breeding unseen in some dark, polluted swamp.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I concur. If people are all saying what is on their minds and calling things like they see them then we all know where each other stands. This isn't a poker game--we don't get to hide our cards.

If you aren't willing to make your opinions public and take a stand, then move aside for those who will. You may disagree with other people's opinions but you do not get to initiate harmful action against them.

[Zarathustra]

Finally, a link has been established between overheated political rhetoric and the Tucson Massacre. James Eric Fuller, who was wounded by Jared Loughton and who a week later was carted off by the authorities for yelling death threats at Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries during an ABC town hall event, provides the connection the "mainstream" media tried so hard to fabricate:

James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured — and their ears severed.

"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.

Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.

The question is whether the country will forgive the liberal media for its deliberate attempt to mislead the public into thinking that conservatives are the dangerous lunatics in this story.

link

He's willing to forgive he man who shot him, but wants to torture Republicans. Okay. I wonder how many other people feel exactly the same? You only have to look around and see how much time they spent condemning Loughner compared to how much time they spent condemning Palin, et al.

[Avatar]

The problem is that the inflammatory rhetoric all too often obscures the actual truth. The message is lost in the medium, as it were.

--A

[Vain]

Double standards and all that Z

[Zarathustra]

Av, I see what you're saying. People can get too worked up, so that they're not thinking clearly anymore, not hearing the reason behind your emotion. So it can often be in your own best interest to tone down the rhetoric if you want to be heard and understood. However, I'm talking more about seeing people's true colors, rather than getting my own message out.

In my opinion, it's similar to the argument about whether we should outlaw businesses discriminating based on race. Personally, I'd want to know which businesses are run by racists so that I don't give them my money. But our law obscures the truth, so I end up giving them my money unwittingly. Both sides of the coin can end up obscuring things.

Vain, you're right, but that's a hell of an understatement! Forgiving the guy who shot him, while wanting to cut off Palin's ears and make a necklace with them ... wow, "double-standard" just doesn't do it justice. That's such a twisted combination of partisan hatred and gratuitous "forgiveness," I'm not even sure how to analyze it. I suppose the guy really is insane. Giffords never should have had someone that crazy working for her.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If everyone speaks their minds, then we will know who the rational people are, who the racist people are, who the crazy people are, etc. People's words and actions quantify them for all to see.

[Cail]

If everyone speaks their minds, then we will know who the rational people are, who the racist people are, who the crazy people are, etc. People's words and actions quantify them for all to see.

In other words, there's no such thing as "too much freedom of speech".

[Vraith]

If everyone speaks their minds, then we will know who the rational people are, who the racist people are, who the crazy people are, etc. People's words and actions quantify them for all to see.

In other words, there's no such thing as "too much freedom of speech".

I can go for that if it means next time I tell a drunk, off-duty cop he's a f...ing ass...., his on-duty buds don't show up, search me, and threaten to arrest me, and the guy loses his job for being, quantifiably, an irrational drunk f...ing ass....

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In an ideal world, we could call police officers whatever we wanted do for good or ill...but we all know this isn't an ideal world.

[Cail]

If everyone speaks their minds, then we will know who the rational people are, who the racist people are, who the crazy people are, etc. People's words and actions quantify them for all to see.

In other words, there's no such thing as "too much freedom of speech".

I can go for that if it means next time I tell a drunk, off-duty cop he's a f...ing ass...., his on-duty buds don't show up, search me, and threaten to arrest me, and the guy loses his job for being, quantifiably, an irrational drunk f...ing ass....

I don't disagree with that one bit. I think it's ridiculous that the police aren't held to a higher, much less the same standard as us common folk.

[Avatar]

Av, I see what you're saying. People can get too worked up, so that they're not thinking clearly anymore, not hearing the reason behind your emotion. So it can often be in your own best interest to tone down the rhetoric if you want to be heard and understood. However, I'm talking more about seeing people's true colors, rather than getting my own message out.

If everyone speaks their minds, then we will know who the rational people are, who the racist people are, who the crazy people are, etc. People's words and actions quantify them for all to see.

Ah, I see what you meant. Yeah, I largely agree in that sense. But I also think that it prevents actual rational discourse in a lot of ways when all anything boils down to is people with their fingers in their ears chanting "Republicans want the poor to starve outside clinics where they can't pay for medical care" or "Democrats want to take away all our money and usher in a communist regime."

But on the issue of seeing people's "true natures," I had a similar thought when I read about this new governor in...what...Alabama told everybody that if they weren't christians, they weren't "brother or sister" to him.

--A

[Vain]

Vain, you're right, but that's a hell of an understatement! Forgiving the guy who shot him, while wanting to cut off Palin's ears and make a necklace with them ... wow, "double-standard" just doesn't do it justice. That's such a twisted combination of partisan hatred and gratuitous "forgiveness," I'm not even sure how to analyze it. I suppose the guy really is insane. Giffords never should have had someone that crazy working for her.

The way I see it is that the 'Right' in America is essentially a bunch of wusses. Give the left credit - they get all worked up about stuff and go nuts and do crazy stuff to get things to change. The 'right' just sits there and wishes things weren't so unfair.

If you want to actually change things then you need to go all apeshit over these numbskulls. Get out in force every day. Scream the left down. Take some bloody action.

The occassional well mannered tea party rally just ain't going to cut it. You need activists. Otherwise just lay down and be trampled because that's all that's been happening for decades.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Ah, I see what you meant. Yeah, I largely agree in that sense. But I also think that it prevents actual rational discourse in a lot of ways when all anything boils down to is people with their fingers in their ears chanting "Republicans want the poor to starve outside clinics where they can't pay for medical care" or "Democrats want to take away all our money and usher in a communist regime."

But on the issue of seeing people's "true natures," I had a similar thought when I read about this new governor in...what...Alabama told everybody that if they weren't christians, they weren't "brother or sister" to him.

--A

That seems to be what most people are already doing--sticking fingers in ears saying "yadda yadda yadda" while ignoring other opinions.

As for that governor, like I said--we get to see what people really think if we let them speak their minds.

[Zarathustra]

Vain, I have a slightly different take. I don't think conservatives are wusses. I think they simply live their lives and don't depend upon the government. Therefore, they have no interest (or time) in becoming activists. They don't spend their lives trying to get as much out of government as they can. Their philosophy doesn't reward making activism a way of life--not the way it rewards many people with a more liberal philosophy.

I'm also a lot more optimistic. For the last few decades, I see the opposite of the trend you mentioned. Since Carter, we haven't had a President govern as a hard liberal until now--and the people are rejecting Obama's policies now that they see them in action. The House just voted to repeal his trademark legislation. The people just gave the Democrats their biggest defeat in more than half a century (at *every* level ... local, state, federal). Our media, which in the past was largely consolidated among liberal elites, has now become a rich marketplace of ideas where conservatives (Rush) or independents (O'Reilly) have the largest audiences in their format. Not to mention the rich diversity of the Internet. And there have been two massive Republican revolutions in Congress, both after attempts by Democratic Presidents to increase government control over our health care system. This is a center-right country.

Our problem isn't that conservatives are wusses. Our problem is that Republicans are hypocrites. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

[Cybrweez]

I've thought along the lines you're talking about Z, while reading Rise of American Democracy. I wonder how people in power do things that aren't really in benefit of all, yet stay in power? I think a large part of it is that those who don't care about power, don't pay attention. Its a philosophy, or worldview, that power is unimportant to one, that they don't care about others who gain power.

[Avatar]

Vain, I have a slightly different take. I don't think conservatives are wusses. I think they simply live their lives and don't depend upon the government. Therefore, they have no interest (or time) in becoming activists. They don't spend their lives trying to get as much out of government as they can. Their philosophy doesn't reward making activism a way of life--not the way it rewards many people with a more liberal philosophy.

Years ago I was arguing with my philosophy professor, and he said something I've always remembered. He said that if you want to protect democracy, you have to be an active participant in it. Not by voting, but by getting out and participating...engage the government, engage political opponents, excercise your democratic privileges.

If you just sit back, you're leaving it up to the people who are getting involved.

Scream the left down.

Yeah, because that'll convince people that your way is better. That's exactly the problem we're talking about...with all the screaming, the reasonable, rational moderate voice is lost.

--A

[Vain]

Vain, I have a slightly different take. I don't think conservatives are wusses. I think they simply live their lives and don't depend upon the government. Therefore, they have no interest (or time) in becoming activists. They don't spend their lives trying to get as much out of government as they can. Their philosophy doesn't reward making activism a way of life--not the way it rewards many people with a more liberal philosophy.

I'm also a lot more optimistic. For the last few decades, I see the opposite of the trend you mentioned. Since Carter, we haven't had a President govern as a hard liberal until now--and the people are rejecting Obama's policies now that they see them in action. The House just voted to repeal his trademark legislation. The people just gave the Democrats their biggest defeat in more than half a century (at *every* level ... local, state, federal). Our media, which in the past was largely consolidated among liberal elites, has now become a rich marketplace of ideas where conservatives (Rush) or independents (O'Reilly) have the largest audiences in their format. Not to mention the rich diversity of the Internet. And there have been two massive Republican revolutions in Congress, both after attempts by Democratic Presidents to increase government control over our health care system. This is a center-right country.

Our problem isn't that conservatives are wusses. Our problem is that Republicans are hypocrites. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

I think you may believe you're turning back the tide but when Obamacare gets into its stride, you can kiss your current perception of conservatism goodbye. If you honestly think that your current Queensberry Rules approach to things is going to unseat Obama then you're mistaken. You're probably going to elect someone 'safe' who will lose by a landslide because the Obama machine will eat them alive. You have less than two years to destroy the machine and quite frankly, based on what I have seen in response to Tucson, you guys don't stand a chance - no matter how loud your bloggers and Rush et al get.

You really do need to become activists and make it too unpleasant for them to step out of line and be a bunch of partisan hacks that drive the discourse of the day in the way they want to shape it.

You're going to lose the things that makes America different and better than the rest of the world. The only way you stop that is by being ballsy. I don't think you are (and I mean the royal you - not you personally)

[Zarathustra]

Considering how we all recently witnessed the rise of the Tea Party, the first conservative grassroots "activist" movement I can remember, I this pessimism and these charges of "just sitting there" ironic and inaccurate.

What produced this groundswell of conservative backbone? The takeover of our federal government by the Democrats, and the most liberal agenda in decades being forced down our throats. The more the Dems succeed, the more they lose.

I think Obama is a one-term President. Obamacare won't be repealed by 2012. It will hang around his neck and sink him just like it sank the Dems in 2010. The House voted to repeal it. The Senate is now faced with the choice of not bringing it to a vote (Reid's favored solution), or bringing it to a vote and watching all the Dems in red states who are up for election in 2012 vote to repeal it (what do they have to lose? They know Obama will veto it). So we'll have a situation where the Dems are the party of "no" (i.e. they won't bring the one issue which caused their 2010 defeat to a vote so that the American people can have their representatives represent them), or Obamacare will be repealed and Obama will veto it. In either case, it will be Obama's downfall. If the Dems block the vote, they're freaking hypocrites. And if Obama vetos a bill that our representatives repealed, then he's single-handedly going against the will of the nation. Lose-lose.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Z, I'm with Vain on this one.
I often yell at the TV/radio when I listen to Repubs from the Bush Sr days to present day.
Republicans are the ones that are always the wimps when they have the upper hand.
Best example is Bush Jr.
He had both houses and the unified American spirit after 9-11 and he.........BLEW IT! They all did.

Democrats though, always go for the throat. It's one of the few things I admire about them.