Mean Political Rhetoric

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

User avatar
turk
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by turk » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:29 am

I love how people blame Rush Limbaugh ALL THE TIME for EVERYTHING. All grievances are somehow connected to his politics. And George Bush of course. That's the stupidest thing we all have to abide with constantly. It's a petty tit for tat community complaint board, and it's excruciatingly boring and predictable. I understand the need for people to blow off steam nonetheless. But this latest connection of the nut-job who went on a rampage in Arizona is another feeble attempt to redress EVERYTHING in a fell swoop. Now it's all the "incendiery rhetoric's" fault. C'mon. What do they call blaming a senseless tragedy on talk-show hosts? How 'bout incendiary rhetoric? They just want to curtail free speech. They are Marxist control freaks. It reminds me of that other issue. How inconvenient that life isn't controllable and easily boiled down to an enemy's flaws. Then we can focus on them and forget our own flaws. That seems to be the operative logic in this. "Dialing down the rhetoric"? Uh, no. The rhetoric is not what drove Loughner to massacre. It's a predictable first response from the pols though. Of course. I think it plays right into Loughners warped reasons for going on the rampage.
A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist! "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

"Let me be perfectly clear" "[...] And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." Barry Sotero

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by Bleyseng » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:33 am

I do blame Rush and his ilk for this as "they" came up with "incendiary rhetoric" on talk radio. "They" (being the rightwing GOP) came up with "incendiery rhetoric" politics where character assassination is the typical way to beat down your opponent during an election. Now incendiery rhetoric is all over Fox News and its not News at all but political diatribe all day long.
Again, if you have 24/7 right wing nutjobs blasting this "incendiary rhetoric" across the airwaves someone is going to believe and follow it to some wacko end.

I guess that if the FCC is going to regulate the use of certain words on TV or Radio then they should regulate the incendiary rhetoric too.

Free Speech is not saying whatever you want about somebody else....Expressing yourself and your ideas without blasting everybody else is Free Speech. Kinda like what we have here in this forum, step out of line and your post is deleted, too far and you are banned.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

User avatar
turk
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by turk » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:44 am

I need to see what you are talking about. I've tuned in and found those broadcasters aren't so much about character assassination and incendiary language. Please provide with some real examples of such hate speech. I don't see much difference between them and the other side. Both are prone to point fingers at the other side and the media is inclined to play on the conflict because that's what sells. Hollywood knows this element of entertainment well. I try to get past it in the news and summarize the points they may be putting forth minus the finger-pointing. So, if you would provide some examples of incendiary hate speech recently made by the "right-wing" media. And by the way, not that it's the case, but you can hardly pin this on that. That's REALLY a stretch. Okay, have at it.
A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist! "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

"Let me be perfectly clear" "[...] And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." Barry Sotero

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:24 pm

turk wrote:I need to see what you are talking about.
Please provide with some real examples of such hate speech.
"Second Amendment solutions" as offered by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle in Nevada's midterm election.

I would challenge you to sit through one Glenn Beck program, with its chalkboard conspiracy theory rants about how the left is trying to destroy America and everything for which it stands. How difficult it is to imagine some stupid bastard sitting there watching this tripe as he begins to calculate how he might pick up a gun and thus make himself a hero to like-minded Americans.

When so much of your ideological narrative is about how the other guys are not simply political adversaries, but enemies, can you really be surprised when a marginal few consider the rules of engagement to require violence? Can you be surprised, Glenn? Sarah? Rush? Bill? Sean?

This isn't about both sides using military metaphors or imagery or engaging in name-calling. That's trivial nonsense. This is about one side, the right-wing side, using the significant tools of mass media to paint progressives as a group that should be eradicated, by force if necessary, because they are a perceived threat to our way of life, to our nation. It is also about Republican politicians standing by and letting it happen, in the hope that they can ride the beast to victory without extensive collateral damage. They can't.
Colin


the below is a reply from "deaniac83" to an article titled:
The Right's "Why You Lookin' At Me"
Whether we're talking about the birthers who sought to undermine the very legitimacy of this historic presidency or the lies perpetrated by, among others, United States Senators, about "death panels," it had the same goal: dehumanize the opposition, demonize them, and turn them into the enemy. Day in and day out we hear things on Fox News and Glenn Beck about an imaginary plot by America's enemies (i.e. Barack Obama) trying to enslave its people (err, white people). They weren't simply political foes to be fought on the battlefield of ideas and democracy, but to be "taken out" by the means of "second amendment remedies" if necessary (Sharron Angle, US Senate candidate in Nevada). That is why bloody rhetoric like Michelle Bachmann's revolution-talk in front of Tea Party crowds, Sarah Palin's "reload" nastiness, and Quayle Jr's "knocking the hell out of [Washington, DC]" were welcomed within the Right, which now runs the Republican party. That's what was pumped up by Fox News constantly referring to President Obama's foreign trips as "surrender" tours. There's that war metaphor again. Us and them. US and its enemies. If you try to talk, you are surrendering, and therefore you are an enemy too.

The right conservative worldview - at least for a long while - has seen negotiations as wimpy, and force as the preferred method to deal with enemies. Shoot first, ask questions later. Be afraid. Shock and awe. Peaceful solutions are for wimps. Those who want force as the last resort are not just wimps but unpatriotic traitors.

That is a climate where violence takes root. When those who people look to for leadership egg on insidious rhetoric, racist propaganda, and make their followers afraid of their political opponents like they'd be afraid of their enemy, for those who are prone to instability, their animal instincts begin to overwhelm their reason and their humanity. Whenever "they're enemy" rhetoric replaces reasoned debate, violence (and violent tendencies) rises. This is not just conjecture, nor is it educated guess. Death threats to President Obama are coming at the rate of over 400% higher than they were for President Bush. We have had people show up outside presidential townhalls with a gun strapped to their waist. We have had a shooting at the National Holocaust Museum, we have had a women's health provider shot and killed at point-blank range, we have had a military base shooting, and we have had an American try to fly a jet into a federal building.

And now, a gunman in Arizona has shot and killed a federal judge, and nearly killed a member of Congress. Yet, we have right wing hooey idiots on radio and television. going on and on about how their rhetoric had nothing to do with any of this. That any caution against incendiary political rhetoric is an attempt to suppress political speech. This is their "who, me?" moment. They are now outraged that anyone dares to to point at the social toxic environment and their contribution to it. This is nothing but a pure attempt on their part to shut down free speech - the kind of free speech that allows us to openly discuss the effects of political demonization, racism, hate speech and incendiary rhetoric. At the minimum, we owe this country to have that conversation. Rush Limbaugh et al need to understand that freedom of speech is not his sole province.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:40 pm

Violence is a tool of the weak.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:46 pm

ruckman101 wrote:Violence is a tool of the weak.
neal
Too short, too sweet.
I reserve the right to execute extreme violence in the name of defense.

Violence is a first option for morons, yes.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
turk
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by turk » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:55 pm

At the minimum :
They are now outraged that anyone dares to to point at the social toxic environment and their contribution to it. This is nothing but a pure attempt on their part to shut down free speech - the kind of free speech that allows us to openly discuss the effects of political demonization, racism, hate speech and incendiary rhetoric. At the minimum, we owe this country to have that conversation. Rush Limbaugh et al need to understand that freedom of speech is not his sole province.
This is too funny. WHAT ABOUT YOUR version of "incendiary rhetoric"? I'm speaking rhetorically here of course, to no one specifically, but this writer, and those who would agree with. Okay, a cut-and paste of my own from the ABC blog comments section:
Ah, free speech and the consequence of not taking responsibility for what is said under it. Not going to do the President Obama thing and point fingers. All that does is divide. Read what I would offer as a complicated explanation. There are always, at least, two sides to a story, but not just two sides to a story. How many sides to a coin? Three. Top, bottom and the edge. To illustrate this verbally will challenge some readers. It has been my experience to listen to what Mr. Limbaugh says, more accurately, repeats. He repeats gaffs that are uttered in print or verbally that primarily come from the left side of the aisle, press, President and party. He is a broad caster. Pun intended. He will use the left's comments against them, by repeating them and using them in parodies. It may be said that this style of broadcasting creates tension and relief at the same time. It is clever, clear and concise, because it pokes fun at those who are unable to laugh at themselves: The Left. They can laugh amongst themselves; they can laugh at others, but they don't laugh at themselves. One thing is certain: They don't like to be laughed at by their perceived enemies: The non-Left. A preferred and old tactic is, calling their enemy on the very tactic they themselves employ to cast the spotlight off themselves for saying it. Mr. Limbaugh cuts through this rhetoric by calling them on their endeavors, thus shining the spotlight back on them. They then call that "hate-speech". They're entitled to their opinions, but that's as far as it should go. It doesn't. They attack using name calling, using terms like: "racists, homophobes, discriminators, bigots, "big"- anything,". It distracts the listeners. It polarizes the masses. It divides the electorate. Isn't that hate and irresponsible? Mr. Limbaugh uses humor, facts and logic. The left uses imagery, chicanery and fiction. If you're mad at Limbaugh, look to his sources: The Left.
Posted by:
InfidelLad 12:42 PM
No, I don't see all the incendiary rhetoric you all are talkin' about - inciting to killings. I do see some incendiary rhetoric coming from both sides and even the president. I'll take your challenge of sitting down and watching Glenn Beck some time. I suppose we must do it in person and discuss on the spot. For the record I don't watch or listen to him. I like how InfidelLad above articulated it. That's about what I think too. This blame of rhetoric is entirely misplaced and talk about irresponsible. How about putting the blame on the shooter? He is probably loving this. He is practically being defended by this. Look at his mug-shot. Stop the incendiary rhetoric and talk responsibly. Let the wheels of justice do their responsibility without this crass politicization.
A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist! "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

"Let me be perfectly clear" "[...] And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." Barry Sotero

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:39 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
ruckman101 wrote:Violence is a tool of the weak.
neal
Too short, too sweet.
I reserve the right to execute extreme violence in the name of defense.

Violence is a first option for morons, yes.
Colin
Violence should only be the very last final option when all efforts have failed under the direst of circumstances. But in a democracy, sometimes you have to admit you lost the election and get over it.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
glasseye
IAC Addict!
Location: Kootenays, BC
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by glasseye » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:32 pm

From a Canadian's perspective, these items demonstrate where at least some of the problem is.

"More than 10,000 Americans die in gun homicides each year, a figure that far surpasses any Western nation"

Ten THOUSAND? Isn't anyone paying attention?

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12201




And:

"If lawmakers want to enhance their safety, and that of their constituents, they should recognize that the true public menace is the well-dressed gun lobbyist hanging out just outside their chamber door"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opini ... l?src=dayp
"This war will pay for itself."
Paul Wolfowitz, speaking of Iraq.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:51 pm

Amen Glasseye, amen.

Dude wasn't packing a firearm designed for hunting, he had a concealed weapon whose design and purpose is to kill people.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

vdubyah73
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by vdubyah73 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:03 pm

loughner is simply a lunatic. look at his reading list. he is a registered independent. if rhetoric is the cause, and it's as bad as you all think it is, we would undoubtedly have a lot more of these type of shootings. get over it. it ain't about rhetoric, it's about a looney tune.
1/20/2013 end of an error
never owned a gun. have fired a few.

User avatar
glasseye
IAC Addict!
Location: Kootenays, BC
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by glasseye » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:49 pm

vdubyah73 wrote: it ain't about rhetoric, it's about a looney tune.

The rhetoric informed and inflamed the looney tune. The NRA ensured that he'd be armed once he turned dangerous.
"This war will pay for itself."
Paul Wolfowitz, speaking of Iraq.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:11 pm

This JustIn:
Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) health care-era "you lie" interruption of President Obama is now reportedly being commemorated with a place on a new, limited edition line of assault rifle components.

The Columbia Free Times reports that the words are being engraved on a series of lower receivers manufactured for popular AR-15 assault rifles. Lower receivers are one of the primary pieces of the firearms.

"Palmetto State Armory would like to honor our esteemed congressman Joe Wilson with the release of our new 'You Lie' AR-15 lower receiver," the weapon manufacturer's site writes on the product description. "Only 999 of these will be produced, get yours before they are gone!"

Wilson caused a commotion in September of 2009 when he disrupted a key health care speech by Obama in which the president claimed that the impending health care reform legislation wouldn't provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

The South Carolina Republican later apologized.

Also check out South Carolina blog Fits News for more on the commemorative gun units, as well as how they could play into Obama's planned visit to the Palmetto State later this year.
God Help Us From These Lunatics
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:21 pm

Bob Herbert - New York Times
The ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country almost certainly made the Tucson tragedy worse. Members of Congress are legitimately concerned about their own safety now, but they should be no less worried about the effect of their inaction on the safety of all Americans.

As lawmakers in Washington engage this week in moments of silence and tributes to Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other casualties, they should realize that they have the power to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors, and their lethality.

To do so, they will need to stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies, whose lobbying power continues to grow despite the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place. Having won a Supreme Court ruling establishing a right to keep a firearm in the home, the gun lobby is striving for new heights of lunacy, waging a campaign to legalize the possession of a gun in schools, bars, parks, offices, and churches, even by teenagers.

It reflexively opposes even mild, sensible restrictions — but if there is any reason left in this debate, the latest mass shooting should force a retreat. Is there anyone, even the most die-hard gun lobbyist, who wants to argue that a disturbed man should be able to easily and legally buy a Glock to shoot a congresswoman, a judge, a 9-year-old girl?

One of the first things Congress can do is to take up a bill proposed by Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat of Long Island, that would ban the extended ammunition clip used by the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner. A Glock 19 usually holds 15 bullets. Mr. Loughner used an oversize clip allowing him to fire as many as 33 bullets before pausing to reload. It was at that point that he was tackled and restrained.

Between 1994 and 2004, it was illegal to manufacture or import the extended clips as part of the ban on assault weapons. But the ban was never renewed because of the fierce opposition of the N.R.A. At least six states, including California and New York, ban extended clips, which serve absolutely no legitimate purpose outside of military or law enforcement use. At a minimum, that ban should be extended nationwide, and should prohibit possession, not just manufacture.

The gun itself was purchased by Mr. Loughner at a sporting goods store that followed the bare-minimum federal background check, which only flags felons, people found to be a danger to themselves or others, or those under a restraining order.

Mr. Loughner was rejected by the military for failing a drug test, and had five run-ins with the Pima Community College police before being suspended for disruptive activity. Why can’t Congress require a background check — without loopholes for gun shows or private sales — that would detect this sort of history? If the military didn’t want someone like Mr. Loughner to be given a firearm, neither should the public at large.

At least two members of Congress say they will start to carry weapons to district meetings, the worst possible response. If lawmakers want to enhance their safety, and that of their constituents, they should recognize that the true public menace is the well-dressed gun lobbyist hanging out just outside their chamber door.
Highlights mine.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Mean Political Rhetoric

Post by ruckman101 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:36 pm

vdubyah73 wrote:loughner is simply a lunatic. look at his reading list. he is a registered independent. if rhetoric is the cause, and it's as bad as you all think it is, we would undoubtedly have a lot more of these type of shootings. get over it. it ain't about rhetoric, it's about a looney tune.
Ye gods, not, not not an.....Independent! Hey, wait a minute. I'm registered Independent.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

Post Reply