Giffords had history with Palin, Tea Party

[foxpaws]

The poll that 04 eludes to is a CBS poll taken Sunday - where 57% of the overall population believes this event wasn't the result of hateful rhetoric. Republicans were highest in this belief - Dems lowest - and the middle, well, in the middle...

Palin is a creature of the numbers - now that she sees where the perceived fallout lies - will she dip her toes in? I think she should tread lightly - because, although the poll states that people perceive this event wasn't caused by rhetoric, there wasn't anything regarding on what people think about this type of violent imagery in general.

And Cal is right - this is so much more than just the Palin tie-in. Shootings like this always draw out the gun control issues, that isn't new. I still think the bigger picture lies in how we continue political discussion in this country. Not about censorship - the images and rhetoric that Palin and others regularly employee cannot be censored, not by law, not by legal decree. But, will they be censored by the American public? Can enough outcry against this form of political bantering change what is happening on the political forefront? I may disagree with almost everything that Ms Palin stands for (hardly a surprise) but I would have never thought to call her a traitor to her country, an enemy that needs to be taken out by exercising my 2nd amendment rights. I have written numerous political speeches, crafted platforms, headed campaigns, created political ads, and not once did I think to take that tact. However, if I were in the game today, I would have had this type of campaign to deal with, and probably, to some extent, thought about fighting fire with fire.

Once again, I hope that through tragedy some good can be derived.

 

[marked8]

Apparently it is OK for a Democratic congressman to say that a governor who is a Republican should be lined up and shot:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...i-d-pa-fla-gov-rick-scott-they-ought-put-him-

I won't get into the movie about Bush being assassinated while he was in office, the Loons who think 9-11 was a Republican conspiracy, the shows like "little Bush", the comparison of Bush to a Chimpanzee (what if they did that to Obama?), the McCain/Palin button on a Nazi uniform (Family Guy). I could go on and on and on about the hypocritical Democrats. And let's not forget guns. Everywhere there has been a massacre, there has been a lack of guns in law abiding citizens hands. Be it Virginia Tech (the shooter lived 5 miles from me), Luby's, the 1984 McDonald's massacre, the New York train killing with Colin Ferguson targeting white's etc. etc. etc. Even here, if there had been one person with a gun lives could have been saved. Lunatics and criminals will get guns no matter the legislation. Chicago, Baltimore and D.C. are proof of that. Gang members send their people into the military to get training and steal weapons getting them to their compadres on the street.
And those doing the killing daily in this countries inner cities, I can guarantee you they aren't tea partiers or Republican's.

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently it is OK for a Democratic congressman to say that a governor who is a Republican should be lined up and shot:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...i-d-pa-fla-gov-rick-scott-they-ought-put-him-

That should be the bigger question. Perhaps this event will lead us to re-evaluate the direction of political discourse.

And if Gov. Scott had been shot - Paul Kanjorski would have been nailed to the wall for his comments. His call to violence is horrific, more so than what Palin is being called out for.

It is about context here - Palin is being drug into this because of her specific comments and imagery regarding Giffords, and to some extent the fact that Giffords called Palin out on those same comments ("Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action."). A representative on the left was shot - the right had previously used violent rhetoric against her. Had the tables been turned, the right wing media would have been on the offensive, and the left on the defensive. There are no benign angels in the political media.

Even here, if there had been one person with a gun lives could have been saved.

Just out of curiosity - how quickly did Loughner go through 30 (or 31, I am not sure if he had one chambered) clicks...

 

[04SCTLS]

Can you define a "military weapon" for me?
And yes, guns are designed to kill things. They are used to defend and protect individuals, our families, and our freedoms.

You don't need a bill of rights to protect a sport or hobby.


Which is incredible considering what you are to go on to say...
But I'm sure you are blissful when saying it.


Of, I'm sorry.. I forgot, I was talking to the King of Upstate NY.
I'm sure your 10 employees are very intimated.
I know landscapers who generate more annual sales than you... settle down.
I know who you are, you've told us enough about yourself to figure it out....and Abe Froeman, the Sausage King of Chicago laughs at you. Your internet anonymity is gone.


Stroke stroke stroke.....


Then have the debate.


See, in your ignorance, you're trusting the person who claims to have the cure. The reality is, you don't know what it is your drinking.

I need to thank you for doing something.
You have so beautifully presented the reprehensible attitude of the Progressive political movement. The condescension. The attitude.

The idea that you are somehow better than other people, that you know what's best, and because of this attitude you should affect the political change you want by any means necessary, without regard for individual liberty or the constitution limitations on the federal government.

Here's the reality, in the big picture, you're just a naive, working class hick living in upstate NY. A useful idiot at best, contemptible at worst, in the mind of the real "ruling class" that you want to identify yourself with in your delusion.

Keep smiling D.

I'll admit I'm arrogant and my life's not perfect but
I'm in the top 1% of income and IQ.
I employ 100 people.
I have no debt.
I'm not Soros or the Koch brothers (16,000 people)
so I'm just a (sort of)little guy at the very bottom of the bigger guys.
Other than voicing my opinion here I don't
participate in politics.
I'm not interested in spreading a message.
I like being the autocratic, empathic owner.
I only get combatitive with you guys.
It depends on how you define better.
I'm glad you found value in seeing my attitude
and condescention and resorted to calling me names(a hick).
Somehow reading that brought a smile to my face.
Composition was always a strong suit.
I'll admit attacking Palin has been a guilty pleasure.
You get very sarcastic when I get under your skin.

Perhaps then we can both pull back on the veiled
ad hominem that I may have started by arguing
"unequally"
We'll see if this blows over or becomes something sustantative
once Giffords gets out of the hospital.
Palin isn't quite finished.
New laws have not yet been written.
The future is yet to be.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm more cynical about human nature.

yet your understanding of human nature and your cynicism about human nature is shallow at best. You don't seem to understand the full logical consequences of that viewpoint and constantly espouse rhetoric that rejects that viewpoint while stroking your ego and/or humoring your axe grinding against Palin.

 

[shagdrum]

I'll admit I'm arrogant and my life's not perfect but
I'm in the top 1% of income and IQ.

:lol:

One does not equal the other.

Being in the top 1 percent of income earners does not mean you are also in the top 1 percent in IQ. In fact, given your actions here, your IQ is just as suspect as the more important qualities of intellectual integrity/honesty and wisdom. Your admitted arrogance virtually guarantees little of those qualities. You may be in the top one percent of income earners, but you are still a petty, ignorant fool. Your hubris only prevents your from grasping the scope of your ignorance.

 

[shagdrum]

Your witless scholarliness is interfering with your being able to see what has happened.
Your rhetorical flourishes often fail to survive an encounter with reality.
You conservatives are wringing your hands with indignation over this being successfully pinned
(to much of the public) on Palin so far.
A BOMB has gone off and Palin just happened to be close to it if you can understand the analogy.
Her imagery fit the explosion perfectly at this moment.
Giffords also specifically warned Palin about her imagery leading to violence like this in a convenient
soundbite several months before.
It's easy for the non political public to link this now in hindsight.
Just run the warning then the shooting in an ad.
The stuff you point out though similar is not as good and current.
Timing is everything.
Killing a moose for pleasure by firing a gun on her Alaska show while saying she hates violence
is also in the public mind due to the currency of her show.
Rush spent his whole show defending conservatism from this bomb yesterday.
He wouldn't be doing that if he didn't understand the ramifications.
I have outlined in other posts why I think Bible Spice is unqualified to be president.
Huckabee is religious but is smart and not a Dolt like Palin.
I could see myself voting for him despite my views on religion in politics.
If there's one thing that life has taught me it's that life has contradictions.

I hate dolts in politics and find the religious dolts especially annoying because
they get a pass from religious voters on intellect.(the he's/she's one of us faith over reason thing )

Intrade which takes private bets on non sports events says Palin's odds to run for president
have plummeted over this.
You never think on your feet while a situation unfolds.
War requires siezing an opportunity, as well as cleverness and cunning which are qualities
you diss and do not value properly
if at all in your thinking, prefering to think of things in the lazy terms of just pure intellect.
Palin has taken a hit from (this guy who smirks like) The Joker(one of your previous avatars )
even if it wasn't intended for her and the left sees the opportunity to inflict more damage against Palin and
put conservatives and Tea Partyers on the defensive.
You need to expand your mind beyond mere knowledge (my sig)
and think of art more.
The art of war.

FIND? Have you returned?!

 

[Calabrio]

Just out of curiosity - how quickly did Loughner go through 30 (or 31, I am not sure if he had one chambered) clicks...

Has it been confirmed that he was using a Glock 19 or that he was using the 33 round magazine? I'd suspect as much but I also thought he might have been using a the standard 15 round capacity and the additional injuries were caused by over penetration.

 

[04SCTLS]

:lol:

One does not equal the other.

Being in the top 1 percent of income earners does not mean you are also in the top 1 percent in IQ. In fact, given your actions here, your IQ is just as suspect as the more important qualities of intellectual integrity/honesty and wisdom. Your admitted arrogance virtually guarantees little of those qualities. You may be in the top one percent of income earners, but you are still a petty, ignorant fool. Your hubris only prevents your from grasping the scope of your ignorance.

Glad you could join in shag.
I see we're both of the opinion that the other one is immature and not as smart as he thinks.
My post has nothing to do with FIND's umbrage with you and your style though.
I'm not going to get indignant with you.
You're the king of blather here.
I have the results my IQ was 130 the last time I took a test.
That's in the top 1% 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence http://www.increasebrainpower.com/iq-scale.html
but theres 2 million people with higher scores than mine
and IQ's not everything.
Palin was on a slide before this event with 50% negative ratings but it certainly hasn't helped
her this bomb going off near her imagery and talking style as I put it.
Looks like Rush has been doing all the defending so far.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm glad you found value in seeing my attitude
and condescention and resorted to calling me names(a hick).

No, no I didn't.

I don't maintain a condescending view of the individual.
I don't presume to know what best for everyone else.
I don't seek to impose my personal will on them, or foolishly think I can control the government to do it for me either.

What I said was that, "in the big picture, you're just a naive, working class hick living in upstate NY." Trust me, I'm not dismissive of what you've accomplished or where you live. To the contrary. But the point being, that "ruling class" you seek to identify yourself with views you with dismissive disgust. Have you spent much time with old money? Have you spent much time in Washington, D.C.? They consider an enterprising self-made man to be a subordinate of them. Much like that same condescension you were trying to project towards others.

Everyone needs to be careful and avoid making the mistake of thinking everything can be taken at face value or that you can apply your own personal frame of reference to make sense of events.
That's a mistake.

The values and motivations of the "ruling class" you wish to identify aren't shared by you.

“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.”

That's a quote from Washington and, all along, I've really felt that fire is an excellent analogy for what is going on. In this case, you honestly believe that you have some control over the fire... you don't.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

My thoughts

Watch, while there's still uncertainty about the story, you will see the spin machine operating at full speed. We'll see the continued demonization of conservative media voices, Sarah Palin, and likely more proposed laws that will limit some freedoms in the name of security.

The frantic pace of it is because there's such a finite amount of time.

Because once it becomes abundantly clear that this guy was not a Republican or Tea Party activist. That he was not a Sarah Palin supporter. If it is discovered conclusively that he was a lunatic triggered by anarchist/marxist concepts or that he simply has nothing to do with the "right wing," the story will disappear. The focus will go away and it'll fade from the public conscience.

Look at all the recent shootings.
They haven't been quite as deadly, but there's that blitz of attention, and effort to make it seem like a Tea Party lunatic, consistent with the narrative the press and politicians are trying to create, but then it turns out that the guy was a leftist.

A marxist. Motivated by Al Gore's book. Ect.
Then the story goes away and we don't talk about it anymore.

Remember the school board shooter? Remember the Discovery Channel shooter?

It's hard to be a conservative you have to actually READ & THINK. It's easy to be a Liberal,,,JUST GO WITH THE FLOW!!

 

[Calabrio]

It's hard to be a conservative you have to actually READ & THINK. It's easy to be a Liberal,,,JUST GO WITH THE FLOW!!

It's always easier to appeal to emotion rather than reason.

 

[shagdrum]

I have the results my IQ was 130 the last time I took a test.

And this serves as justification for your boundless ignorance of what you talk about?

Your actions here are always aimed at condescending to everyone who disagrees with you and axe grinding. Whenever there is an attempt to engage you in productive discourse about broader issues, you seem to be unable to look past your own, very limited knowledge. Have you not considered the notion that you don't know everything and that there is far more that you don't know, especially in the world of politics, then what you do know?

Yes, we clearly have contempt for each other, however it is for very different reasons. I am contemptuous of your ego and inability to consider ideas that you didn't come up with in the first place, and you are contemptuous of me because of the possibility that I might actually know something that you do not.

 

[04SCTLS]

And this serves as justification for your boundless ignorance of what you talk about?

Your actions here are always aimed at condescending to everyone who disagrees with you and axe grinding. Whenever there is an attempt to engage you in productive discourse about broader issues, you seem to be unable to look past your own, very limited knowledge. Have you not considered the notion that you don't know everything and that there is far more that you don't know, especially in the world of politics, then what you do know?

This is not a place of higher learning although you seem to treat it as such.
It is more like the bar where clever men gravitate to discuss current events.
And what do you know about the world of politics that you didn't read somewhere first.

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes, we clearly have contempt for each other, however it is for very different reasons. I am contemptuous of your ego and inability to consider ideas that you didn't come up with in the first place, and you are contemptuous of me because of the possibility that I might actually know something that you do not

.

I'm not contemptuous of you.
You may have a lot of knowledge but I think you lack imagination and original thinking.
You yourself have shown your disdain for the personal opinion instead going with the collective thought as being more refined (at least that's what I think you said)
Creativity and imagination is personal thought and you may know more but I imagine things you do not think of.

 

[shagdrum]

It is more like the bar where clever men gravitate to discuss current events.
And what do you know about the world of politics that you didn't read somewhere first.

. You may have a lot of knowledge but I think you lack imagination and original thinking.
You yourself have shown your disdain for the personal opinion instead going with the collective thought as being more refined (at least that's what I think you said)
Creativity and imagination is personal thought and you may know more but I imagine things you do not think of.

The whole standard of "creativity" and "imagination" in political discourse simply serves as a means of putting self gratification over the truth.

All of the "imaginative thought" (as you represent it) cannot, on it's own come anywhere near the cumulative insights of the wisest minds throughout history. There is plenty of room for "original thought" in light of the insights of past thought and the history of political ideas and it serves the greater purpose of understanding reality.

The ONLY reason to ignore those historical insights is to stroke your ego. The ONLY reason to shoot for "creativity" or "imagination" in debates is to show off and/or mislead.

It is clear that political discourse is nothing more then an exercise in ego for you. We are simply a means to your self aggrandizement. Fortunately, some of us are not so self absorbed and actually have the crazy notion that political discussions should serve a greater purpose then self.

I know that is a foreign concept to someone for whom "self" is all there is.

It is also very interesting how you talk about "imagination" and "original thought" yet you are virtually incapable of looking past emotionally appealing rhetoric, especially when it appeals to your sense of smug superiority.

That is not the thought process of the "upper one percent" of minds, but of the lowest common denominator in society.

 

[shagdrum]

Just took and IQ quiz on facebook and discovered that I am also in the top 1% of intellects. What a coincidence!

Now I too can ignore the supposed "wisdom" of others.

After all, a lifetime of research and reflection on a given subject certainly can't produced any insights that could ever approach what I could imagine with a little spare time contemplating the same subject.

 

[shagdrum]

I value the opinion of doers over talkers and posers any day.

Of course, in certain fields, like politics, doing IS talking (as well as utilizing other forms of communication).
The "end product" is IDEAS.
So, dismissing people who go out of their way to understand, add to and convey those ideas is inherently hypocritical if you "value the opinion of doers".
But, it is a very convenient excuse to dismiss others views in the name of self gratification.

Of course, if you are talking about propagandists as "doers", then you are committing yourself to an absurd proposition as well. In effect, you are valuing those who distort the truth toward personal ends over those who look to expose the truth; valuing lying over honesty. This demonstrates a profound lack of principle.

 

[04SCTLS]

Of course, in certain fields, like politics, doing IS talking (as well as utilizing other forms of communication).
The "end product" is IDEAS.
So, dismissing people who go out of their way to understand, add to and convey those ideas is inherently hypocritical if you "value the opinion of doers".
But, it is a very convenient excuse to dismiss others views in the name of self gratification.

Of course, if you are talking about propagandists as "doers", then you are committing yourself to an absurd proposition as well. In effect, you are valuing those who distort the truth toward personal ends over those who look to expose the truth; valuing lying over honesty. This demonstrates a profound lack of principle.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm dismissing you.
You're always very black and white.
It's yes or no with you.
I value the opinion of people who have accomplished things in life in general and am not refering to politics exclusively.
You could say your collective political thinking through the ages is the accomplishment of the accomplished and there lies it's value.
Hopefully you'll be able to put all or at least some of your knowledge to practical use or it would be a shame.

Life has taught me that there are contradictions.
I'm financially conservative but my bread is buttered by progressivism.
Maybe one day you'll be faced with the irony of doing something for money that you wouldn't totally support intellectually or politically because you found a golden goose.
Perhaps outside of politics you may find more value in creativity and imagination.

 

[04SCTLS]

Just took and IQ quiz on facebook and discovered that I am also in the top 1% of intellects. What a coincidence!

Now I too can ignore the supposed "wisdom" of others.

After all, a lifetime of research and reflection on a given subject certainly can't produced any insights that could ever approach what I could imagine with a little spare time contemplating the same subject.

Well I didn't think you were of just average intelligence.
It's no fun and not very challenging arguing with people below one's level.
There's book wisdom, observed wisdom and wisdom that comes from life experience.
Your sarcasm is quite witty but creativity and imagination can pay much greater dividends than mere knowledge.
In life it's how you apply your knowledge to create something that you've imagined that counts.

 

[shagdrum]

It's no fun and not very challenging arguing with people below one's level.
There's book wisdom, observed wisdom and wisdom that comes from life experience.

While it is easy to draw theoretical distinctions between those types of "wisdom", they do overlap quite a bit.

It is rather funny that you bring this up yet you reject conservative thought constantly when, as an ideology, it focuses on the wisdom of experience. It is liberalism that focuses on the articulated wisdom of "rational principles" to govern society.

Again, know what you are talking about.

Your sarcasm is quite witty but creativity and imagination can pay much greater dividends than mere knowledge.

...in certain circumstances.

You need to look at what is and is not appropriate for various circumstances. Would you want a neurosurgeon to throw out all his learned knowledge before he operates on you?

In certain circumstances, creativity can pay off huge dividends, like in the free market. You find a novel way to bring something to the market that is unique and people want, and you can make a fortune. But you still need at least a basic knowledge of society and a stronger knowledge of certain markets to be successful (unless you simply get lucky). There is a certain balance that is different for each circumstance.

The application of creativity in politics is not the same (and not to the same degree) as in entrepreneurship.

In life it's how you apply your knowledge to create something that you've imagined that counts.

Again, in certain circumstances, as in the way you have made your empire.

But the aim of the political process is not to create something wholly new and/or original but to create the best possible system for people to lead good lives. There is a lot of room for what is and is not considered a "good life", but this begins by first understanding society accurately and diagnosing the various social phenomena that inhibit good lives accurately, the developing logically derived principles for governance from those understandings.

Then there is some creativity in coming up with particular policies that apply knowledge and principle. Then accuracy is again most important in examining the trade off and coming up with the unintended consequences of those policies to refine them.

There is also creativity in the rhetoric process, but it still conforms to basic psychological and social patterns. At almost every point, creativity is at the margins while the focus is on accuracy. When political discourse is dominated more by "creativity", propagandists rule, emotions override judgment and societies fall to austerity if not tyranny. Nazi Germany under Hitler is a great example.

 

[04SCTLS]

While it is easy to draw theoretical distinctions between those types of "wisdom", they do overlap quite a bit.

It is rather funny that you bring this up yet you reject conservative thought constantly when, as an ideology, it focuses on the wisdom of experience. It is liberalism that focuses on the articulated wisdom of "rational principles" to govern society.

Again, know what you are talking about.

Wisdom you read, observations of society by current events and personal experiences in ones own life are not theoretical distinctions.

Conservatism has been around a long time.
However the religious right is a recent development of the last 30 years.
The religious right's infiltration of conservativism and reliance on the wisdom of faith instead of experience is what drives my disdain.
When one's faith is more important than one's intellect and accomplishments
we get less than the best people for the job.
A nepotistic cronyism.
Economic conservatives are my friends keeping my tax rate down.
It's the religious ones I treat with suspicion.

 

[marked8]

Have a shooting? Give away a T-Shirt:

http://www.examiner.com/conservativ...o-political-rally?CID=examiner_alerts_article

 

[04SCTLS]

Have a shooting? Give away a T-Shirt:

http://www.examiner.com/conservativ...o-political-rally?CID=examiner_alerts_article

This is just a paranoid neurotic
conservative opinion piece.
Right up there with tha "scandal" of Obama
taking off his jacket in the Oval office.
Note the question mark in the headline.
Blood libel from the other side?
That term has overshadowed Palin's otherwise well produced
response and created more controversy.
In another coincidence Giffords also happens to be Jewish.
To equate general opportunistic politics with blood libel brings up holocost imagery but then conservatives were already calling Obama a Nazi and disrespectfully trivializing that word too.

 

[Calabrio]

To equate general opportunistic politics with blood libel brings up holocost imagery but then conservatives were already calling Obama a Nazi and disrespectfully trivializing that word too.

1. The rally showcased opportunistic politics. We're discussing that in the other thread Marked8 posted this.

2. The use of the term "Blood Libel" is appropriate, though possibly not productive at this moment. It does not trivialize the word at all.

3. And all discussions exploring Obama philosophy within the constructs of National Socialism in German or Italian Fascism has nothing to do with genocide.