Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

[Accidental Martyr]

Tea Party group uses Tucson shooting to raise funds.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/tacky-tacky-arizona-tea-party-uses-tu

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, technically, complaining about the bloody shirt.

I should have put the bloody shirt in quotes to denote the tactic not the artifact, itself.

 

[tyr_13]

Are your referring to the too reasonable part? Even so, I thought there would be a few people here who would agree.

Sorry, no, it's not too reasonable for me. I was agreeing that it sounds reasonable.

I think that's a big factor, too.

If we had more of a multi-party system (and it is possible), this would highlight the distinctions within the two "sides". Purported bedfellows could actually run against each other, rather than alongside (which makes it seem that they think the same way).

And it would force public officials to find consensus since (probably) no one faction would consistently win majorities. Cooperation would be rewarded instead of a scramble for all the marbles. I think moderation would do well in such an environment.

At the very least it would help with more accurate labels, which are relied on too much anyway. The UK groups for example at least let you say something like, "I'm with the powdered wigs and tea cracker party," and you know roughly what they believe plus or minus two issues. Not that it would excuse not listening to what the person wants to say. In the US, it's almost like you want to ask, 'are you a good witch Democrat, or a bad witch Democrat' whenever you meet someone.

That's on top of the way more important governmental issues you already pointed out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

that's cute, as clearly that was a typo. I clearly meant to say the "2nd Amendment", in my post that you linked to.

I see no reason to amend the 1st Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment? totally.

Is there evidence of this claim, like the context of the discussion before the comment?

I'd like to believe you, but I'm also leery of history re-writes like claiming gun crosshairs are surveyors marks, only AFTER your map has been condemned. If you could show you were discussing gun laws and not banning hate speech, you could support your case.

 

[applecorped]

http://washingtonindependent.com/10...ont-blame-heated-rhetoric-for-tucson-shooting

"CBS released a poll Tuesday revealing that six in ten Americans polled don’t blame the “country’s heated political rhetoric” for the Tucson shootings over the weekend. More from CBS:

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
​

There’s no evidence that Jared Lee Loughner was influenced by “heated political rhetoric”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As funny as it would be to see thunder hoisted by his own quote, what he says is pretty clearly true from context. It is his quote, and he was in the process of talking about limiting guns, not speech.

However, even if it was typed erroneously, I think it still satisfies the conditions of the bet. The bet was about what can be seen in the thread.

Hey, there you go. Sometimes a typo is indeed a typo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"1nd" or "2st" would be a typo.

"1st" for "2nd" is a mistake, an error of your thought processes, to which you must own up if you expect to maintain a degree of credibility on a board whose express purpose is in applying critical thought to any matter at hand.

Not necessarily. I find myself typing the wrong word from time to time when I type fast. I'm always amazed when I type a word like 'of' or 'in' or 'and' when I thought and meant to type something else altogether. When I go to proof read there will often be word errors like that which I had no idea at the time I was typing.

You really have to go by the context. Either he was talking about limiting guns or speech. That was your point. You weren't betting you could find a technical error were you?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I should have put the bloody shirt in quotes to denote the tactic not the artifact, itself.

Well, the tactic of waving the bloody shirt (as defined in the usual sense) is making political hay of a tragedy. The more commonly used tactic (and the one being employed in this case) is complaining about people waving the bloody shirt while disregarding the implications (or even the events) of the tragedy itself.

In other words, making the attacker the victim and vice versa.

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, the tactic of waving the bloody shirt (as defined in the usual sense) is making political hay of a tragedy. The more commonly used tactic (and the one being employed in this case) is complaining about people waving the bloody shirt while disregarding the implications (or even the events) of the tragedy itself.

In other words, making the attacker the victim and vice versa.

Right, the Southerners accused the North of "Waving the Bloody Shirt" when they tried to deal with the terrorism. So you're right, it can be understood a number of ways.

To be fair to Applecorped, Loughner is nuts. He may have shot a bunch of people if he grew up on Sesame Street.

In the broader discussion of violence and violent rhetoric, however, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are clearly trying to silence discussion about the current state of the country with the "bloody shirt" gambit.

 

[Accidental Martyr]

http://washingtonindependent.com/10...ont-blame-heated-rhetoric-for-tucson-shooting

"CBS released a poll Tuesday revealing that six in ten Americans polled don’t blame the “country’s heated political rhetoric” for the Tucson shootings over the weekend. More from CBS:

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
​

There’s no evidence that Jared Lee Loughner was influenced by “heated political rhetoric”

Are you saying the results of this poll prove that none of this speech/rhetoric etc. had any effect on Loughner?

 

[The Platypus]

Loughner's own words from his bizarre posting and videos, show that his motivations were todays extreme political rhetoric and paranoid conspiracy theory delusions.

I've watched how plenty of these conspiracy and extreme political cult people have been running around for years and decades, inciting and promoting, even threatening such violence. Pumping fear, promoting hatred and promoting violence constantly. It has happened countless times even right here on this very forum.

Then when one of them does kill people, it amazes me how we have such a habit of turning such a blind eye to the tragedies from most of our domestic extremist groups.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Thunder, send the man his sawbuck.

A sawbuck is ten dollars.

Thunder owes a double sawbuck.

 

[BenBurch]

...
There’s no evidence that Jared Lee Loughner was influenced by “heated political rhetoric”

And that would matter to my argument how, exactly?

If Loughner was not so-influenced, others certainly HAVE been;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/...of_perriello_brother_under_investig-ar-75186/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britton_(doctor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

And the point is that sometimes you CALL for violence, or use violent rhetoric, and you GET it. And therefore it is irresponsible to call for it. Because people like Adkisson and Rudolf and Loughner are insane and it is predictable that such people exist in the population and predictable that sometimes they will hear those words and be motivated to do terrible things.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Right, the Southerners accused the North of "Waving the Bloody Shirt" when they tried to deal with the terrorism. So you're right, it can be understood a number of ways.

To be fair to Applecorped, Loughner is nuts. He may have shot a bunch of people if he grew up on Sesame Street.

In the broader discussion of violence and violent rhetoric, however, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are clearly trying to silence discussion about the current state of the country with the "bloody shirt" gambit.

And they named it as such because a Congressman (according to legend, though there is debate) literally waved the bloody shirt of a man whipped by the Klan on the floor of Congress while decrying its terror tactics. So instead of addressing the issue, Southern politicians rolled their eyes and dismissed the speech as him waving the bloody shirt. It's a really despicable cycle that seems to have no end.

 

[quadraginta]

"1nd" or "2st" would be a typo.

"1st" for "2nd" is a mistake, an error of your thought processes, to which you must own up if you expect to maintain a degree of credibility on a board whose express purpose is in applying critical thought to any matter at hand.

Not necessarily. I find myself typing the wrong word from time to time when I type fast. I'm always amazed when I type a word like 'of' or 'in' or 'and' when I thought and meant to type something else altogether. When I go to proof read there will often be word errors like that which I had no idea at the time I was typing.

You really have to go by the context. Either he was talking about limiting guns or speech. That was your point. You weren't betting you could find a technical error were you?

I don't think Vortigern was betting anything at all.

For one thing, it was Bob Blaylock who responded to won Parky's wager.

I don't think anyone was betting anything except for Parky. Nobody invited him to. He made the offer all on his own, unprompted.

If he wants to crawl out the back door that's all well and good, but it isn't the result of anyone else's machinations.

 

[TraneWreck]

And they named it as such because a Congressman (according to legend, though there is debate) literally waved the bloody shirt of a man whipped by the Klan on the floor of Congress while decrying its terror tactics. So instead of addressing the issue, Southern politicians rolled their eyes and dismissed the speech as him waving the bloody shirt. It's a really despicable cycle that seems to have no end.

You see the tactic pop up in new iterations over and over.

The new version is the attempt to make accusations of racism, not racism itself, the real injustice. Breitbart, not Shirley Sherrod and ACORN, is the real victim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've been following this thread (and the larger national argument) since Saturday, and I've noticed two things that seem to be missing. Here is one.

I think too many people are imagining two massive opposing political monoliths, when in reality there are several Left factions, several Right factions, and maybe even some adamantly Centrist factions. This is true even in the contemporary United States, which has an Overton Window much narrower than what is found in Western Europe.

Look, the leadership of the Democratic Party in Washington is not in bed with, for example, the Animal Liberation Front. And the latter probably considers the former completely useless and conservative. Yet they are both characterized as part of "The" Left. Meanwhile, the leadership of the Republican Party in Washington is not in bed with, for example, the National Alliance. The latter probably considers the former completely useless and liberal. Yet they are both characterized as part of "The" Right.

There are plenty of other cases where it's a mistake to see the political environment as having simply two large sides. The false dichotomy obscures significant differences in political perspective, policy goals, and preferred tactics "within" supposed "sides". There are actually dozens of sides, and some of the "neighbors" don't even talk to each other.

Recognizing these distinctions means that critics can't necessarily lump the "centrists" in with the "extremists", and thus people in the more-mainstream factions won't have to feel compelled to defend people they really have no allegiance to. This includes "defense" by tu quoque arguments. It's better to say that "Those aren't our people, and here are our differences with them," identifying some of those significant differences in analysis, policy goals, and accepted tactics. The more that people in the "normal" factions can consistently broadcast the message that they are not in league with the outliers, the harder it will be to use that broad brush. And with a track record of such clarity (in word and deed), even their political adversaries would find the distinctions credible.

Does this sound reasonable? (Perhaps too reasonable?)

It's reasonable and relevant. But it also leaves out a key point that the underlying issue really is the leadership of the Repub Party has openly chosen to support the extremist views of many of the fringe who identify themselves as with the Tea Party, as with the more extreme Evangelicals and as other borderline extreme right wing groups. The Repub Party leadership has courted these voters. It's a goldmine of votes and political activism for their party and they are now addicted to those votes. And the reasonable Republicans are not speaking out against these views.

Take for example John McCain first condemning then embracing Bob Jones University. And there's Focus on the Family and James Dobson, there was Jerry Falwell before he died, there were recent problems with Evangelicals in the military, which the Repub Party fully endorsed all the Evangelicals involved. You don't think the right to lifers who protested letting Teri Schiavo die a peaceful death were just a tad extreme? There's a lot of votes among those extreme right to lifers.

The right has always looked to the NRA for many guaranteed votes. There was an issue over the Brady Bill which clearly caused some cognitive dissonance among some Party members. But the dogmatic, no gun restrictions regardless of the common sense of the regulations prevailed within the Repub leadership. Do you think they really all believe the extreme slippery slope dogma, or do you think NRA votes bought the disregard for common sense laws from at least some of the Party members?

The Repub leadership cannot condemn anything Rush Limbaugh says no matter how outrageous or extreme. Boehner, the other day refused to say the Birthers were wrong, only that Boehner himself accepted the President was born in HI. But even then, Boehner chose words like "I take the President's word for it" instead of something like, "the birth certificate provided is the same legal document we use for anyone needing to prove their birthplace. Of course Obama was born in HI". Boehner chose his words very carefully, probably from a Frank Luntz talking point intended to seem reasonable while courting the Birthers at the same time.

And why did most of the Tea Party candidates register as Repubs? Tea Party candidates won many Repub primaries. Even though the Tea Party consists of loosely connected group, there are certain extreme messages that seem to be consistent among these folks. "Open Carry" for example, is an extreme viewpoint. The Repubs aren't condemning these guys, they are courting them. Heaven forbid you say, "No, it is not right to come to a political rally with an assault rifle slung over your shoulder."


Show us where the Repub leadership has spoken out against any of the right wing extremists? Maybe if one is as extreme as Tim McVeigh or Dr Tiller's murderer they might. You certainly didn't hear any Repub leaders condemning Bill O'Reilly for his constant repeating of "Tiller the Baby Killer". Are all right to lifers extreme? No. But the ones calling physicians murderers? Yes. Are all people who want smaller government extreme? No. But when you run around with an assault rifle over your shoulder to demonstrate your view of government? Yes, that is bizarre behavior in 21st Century USA.

And maybe that's part of the problem. The right seems to have trouble drawing the line between a point of view and an extreme version of that point of view.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It's reasonable and relevant. But it also leaves out a key point that the underlying issue really is the leadership of the Repub Party has openly chosen to support the extremist views of many of the fringe who identify themselves as with the Tea Party, as with the more extreme Evangelicals and as other borderline extreme right wing groups. The Repub Party leadership has courted these voters. It's a goldmine of votes and political activism for their party and they are now addicted to those votes. And the reasonable Republicans are not speaking out against these views.

Take for example John McCain first condemning then embracing Bob Jones University. And there's Focus on the Family and James Dobson, there was Jerry Falwell before he died, there were recent problems with Evangelicals in the military, which the Repub Party fully endorsed all the Evangelicals involved. You don't think the right to lifers who protested letting Teri Schiavo die a peaceful death were just a tad extreme? There's a lot of votes among those extreme right to lifers.

The right has always looked to the NRA for many guaranteed votes. There was an issue over the Brady Bill which clearly caused some cognitive dissonance among some Party members. But the dogmatic, no gun restrictions regardless of the common sense of the regulations prevailed within the Repub leadership. Do you think they really all believe the extreme slippery slope dogma, or do you think NRA votes bought the disregard for common sense laws from at least some of the Party members?

The Repub leadership cannot condemn anything Rush Limbaugh says no matter how outrageous or extreme. Boehner, the other day refused to say the Birthers were wrong, only that Boehner himself accepted the President was born in HI. But even then, Boehner chose words like "I take the President's word for it" instead of something like, "the birth certificate provided is the same legal document we use for anyone needing to prove their birthplace. Of course Obama was born in HI". Boehner chose his words very carefully, probably from a Frank Luntz talking point intended to seem reasonable while courting the Birthers at the same time.

And why did most of the Tea Party candidates register as Repubs? Tea Party candidates won many Repub primaries. Even though the Tea Party consists of loosely connected group, there are certain extreme messages that seem to be consistent among these folks. "Open Carry" for example, is an extreme viewpoint. The Repubs aren't condemning these guys, they are courting them. Heaven forbid you say, "No, it is not right to come to a political rally with an assault rifle slung over your shoulder."


Show us where the Repub leadership has spoken out against any of the right wing extremists? Maybe if one is as extreme as Tim McVeigh or Dr Tiller's murderer they might. You certainly didn't hear any Repub leaders condemning Bill O'Reilly for his constant repeating of "Tiller the Baby Killer". Are all right to lifers extreme? No. But the ones calling physicians murderers? Yes.

And maybe that's part of the problem. The right seems to have trouble drawing the line between a point of view and an extreme version of that point of view.

The response (both loud and immediate) in public to being called out on this is almost always the same, as well. Claim persecution, censorship, etc.

ETA: What is fascinating about this is the double-standard that comes with it. For example, calling for Shirley Sherrod to be fired over a largely manufactured controversy, while saying that Juan Williams' rights were being infringed and calling censorship when he was fired from NPR for saying that Muslim people on airplanes make him nervous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for linking this. I second the recommendation to watch this.

Look at the lists, watch this video, the direction of violence is irrefutable.

I also suggest paying close attention to O'Reilly calling Dr. Tiller, Tiller "the Baby Killer" over and over and over starting around 10min.

THere's a difference between mocking, insulting and attacking opponents and dehumanizing opponents.

I think we can all figure out the difference between "Onward Christian Soldiers" and Bin Laden's call for jihad. If we want to actually confront and deal with this problem, we need to stop playing stupid games and pretending like everything is the same. It isn't.

Nominated with the following comment: I nominate TraneWreck for the [above] post for describing the essence of the incessant false equivalency that the current political climate is equally outrageous on both the right and left side of the isle.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The response (both loud and immediate) in public to being called out on this is almost always the same, as well. Claim persecution, censorship, etc.

ETA: What is fascinating about this is the double-standard that comes with it. For example, calling for Shirley Sherrod to be fired over a largely manufactured controversy, while saying that Juan Williams' rights were being infringed and calling censorship when he was fired from NPR for saying that Muslim people on airplanes make him nervous.

This is from Karl Rove's Playbook:

Tactic #3: Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of