# Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228 "2011-01-11T16:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/61 "2011-01-11T19:14:35Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > I don’t know. But you, Ludovic, spark240, seem to know exactly was going on in the mind of Loughner. Not at all. All I know is some of what he _said_, and what he then _did_. If _you_ think these are unrelated to each other, the burden of proof falls to you, as **Ludovic** suggested. > [@Malthus](#): > > Context and motive matter. For example, if Giffords was shot by her husband in a domestic dispute, it would not be a “recognizable political goal” or “attempted assassination”, even though she’s a political figure he wanted dead. Of course. I was speaking of political figures who are attacked for _being_ political figures. I thought that was clear. (In this case, it appears that Judge Roll, though a political figure in his own right, was _not_ assassinated.) Loughner’s writings (online and personal) referenced recognizable political concepts, even if incoherently. He named a specific political figure, who he did not know in any other context. Then he attempted to kill that person. This may be crazy, but it is not random. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/62 "2011-01-11T19:14:49Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And which of those was promoted by a Democratic nominee for federal office? At least we have the sense not to nominate our whackos; Republicans just can’t help voting for theirs. IIRC, the Bush movie was done in Britain - so not only do we not nominate our wackos, we exile them! 😃 However, as I understand it the movie was an examination of what would happen after an assassination, and not a call to assassinate anyone, so it isn’t even a good example. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/63 "2011-01-11T19:16:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > However, as I understand it the movie was an examination of what would happen after an assassination, and not a call to assassinate anyone, so it isn’t even a good example. Yet, you believe that Sarah Palin’s map was a call for the actual killing of certain congressional candidates? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/64 "2011-01-11T19:17:22Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Did you think that Sarah Palin’s map meant that she and others were actually going to kill those candidates? It’s violent imagery regardless of whether or not it is intended to be taken literally. It’s _imagery_. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/65 "2011-01-11T19:17:50Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Not at all. All I know is some of what he _said_, and what he then _did_. If _you_ think these are unrelated to each other, the burden of proof falls to you, as **Ludovic** suggested. I’m sorry, I’m not in the business of speculating on the motives of crazy people. I’ll leave that to you. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/66 "2011-01-11T19:18:05Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Are you talking about the British production _Death of a President_? If so, are you attempting to claim that the film advocated the assassination of GWB? If it didn’t, that would undercut your case a bit, wouldn’t it? > > [Here’s the Wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_(2006_film)). I leave it to readers to decide whether **Yorick** has found a valid example of American left-wing violent imagery or not. The only \*book \*I could find about the assassination of Bush was [Checkpoint](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_%28novel%29), wherein two characters spend much of the book discussing how they’d kill the President through cartoonish violence (such as “Manchurian scorpions”)… and never, you know, actually go through with it. Personally, I’m a little unclear how this book, and the movie you mentioned, indicate Liberal violence against a Republican President, but I’m sure friend \*\*Yorick \*\*will be along any minute now to lay it out on the big chalkboard. … any minute now. ---
**Author:** ![Giant\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/779978/32.png) [@Giant\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giant_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/67 "2011-01-11T19:18:39Z")
[I can’t believe someone would so obviously incite people to violence by using crosshairs.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA) ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/68 "2011-01-11T19:18:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s violent imagery regardless of whether or not it is intended to be taken literally. It’s _imagery_. So? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/69 "2011-01-11T19:20:59Z")
Both parties use violent and hateful imagery. The Republicans (and fellow travelers to the right of the Republicans) have done it much more in the past two years than the left has. But during the Bush years, the Democrats (and fellow travelers to the left of the mainstream Democrats) were the stronger purveyors of hate-filled rhetoric. The usual response to this is that Bush _deserved_ it, and thus it’s excusable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/70 "2011-01-11T19:22:29Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Yet, you believe that Sarah Palin’s map was a call for the actual killing of certain congressional candidates? Did that art film stir up Democrats, or anyone else, into any kind of kill Bush frenzy? Did they start parading around the White House with guns? Did they go to Bush events with guns? And, though people have been trying to get this through to you for quite a while, the map by itself would be insignificant. It is significant as a piece of a larger and quite intended strategy to work up the rabble Do you think Palin (and the others, but she is the most visible) has a moral obligation to try to tone down the rhetoric, or should she just keep on denying that she had any part in the overheated atmosphere we have today? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/71 "2011-01-11T19:23:13Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Cite? The Tea Party Anti-abortion groups Anti-gay groups Anti-Muslim campaigns Their memberships may not be exclusively haters, but those groups attract the haters. The Republicans court those groups, which are based on hatred ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/72 "2011-01-11T19:26:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Did that art film stir up Democrats, or anyone else, into any kind of kill Bush frenzy? Did they start parading around the White House with guns? Did they go to Bush events with guns? Did Sarah Palin’s speeches stir up anyone into a kill Democrats frenzy? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/73 "2011-01-11T19:26:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The Tea Party > > Anti-abortion groups > > Anti-gay groups > > Anti-Muslim campaigns > > Their memberships may not be exclusively haters, but those groups attract the haters. The Republicans court those groups, which are based on hatred ideology. Based upon that qualification, then the Democratic Party recruits hate groups as well. As you will find haters in any group. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/74 "2011-01-11T19:26:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both parties use violent and hateful imagery. The Republicans (and fellow travelers to the right of the Republicans) have done it much more in the past two years than the left has. > > But during the Bush years, the Democrats (and fellow travelers to the left of the mainstream Democrats) were the stronger purveyors of hate-filled rhetoric. > > The usual response to this is that Bush _deserved_ it, and thus it’s excusable. Please give some examples from leaders of the Democratic party? “Bush lied, people died” does not qualify IMO. During the Clinton years there was plenty of violent rhetoric from militias and the like, in one form or another, but actual political leaders neither encouraged it or fanned it, as far as I can recall. So let’s not use some wacko bloggers as examples either. Those will exist on both sides, and are regrettable but can be marginalized. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/75 "2011-01-11T19:29:15Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The Tea Party Not a hate group. > [@](#): > > Anti-abortion groups Not a hate group. > [@](#): > > Anti-gay groups Arguably a hate group, but the focus of the interaction has been on legal issues like same-sex marriage. Now, you may simply choose to define opposition to same-sex marriage as hate, but that’s not a definition I accept. > [@](#): > > Anti-Muslim campaigns I deny the Republicans have courted “anti-Muslim” groups or campaigns. > [@](#): > > Their memberships may not be exclusively haters, but those groups attract the haters. The Republicans court those groups, which are based on hatred ideology. Bull fucking shit. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/76 "2011-01-11T19:29:23Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Based upon that qualification, then the Democratic Party recruits hate groups as well. As you will find haters in any group. As I stated, these groups are based on an ideology of hatred, they have more than just random members who are haters. I forgot to mention militias in the list, and I’m sure there are other examples. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/77 "2011-01-11T19:30:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did Sarah Palin’s speeches stir up anyone into a kill Democrats frenzy? Did they encourage people to go to Presidential events with guns? Looks like. And there appears to be quite a frenzy, even if it has been limited to vandalism so far. I’ll ask you also: do you think, given what has happened, Palin has a moral obligation to try to tone down the rhetoric? McCain, if you remember, actually said that the opposition should be treated with respect. Or should she keep denying that her words could possibly have an impact? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/78 "2011-01-11T19:31:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Please give some examples from leaders of the Democratic party? “Bush lied, people died” does not qualify IMO. I love how the rules keep changing. The previous poster seeks to tar and efather the Republicans because they court groups that, according to him, spew hatred. You seek to limit the inquiry to leaders of the Demoratic party. Which is it? And Sarah Palin is a former, failed VP candidate. She holds no leadership position in the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/79 "2011-01-11T19:32:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both parties use violent and hateful imagery. The Republicans (and fellow travelers to the right of the Republicans) have done it much more in the past two years than the left has. > > But during the Bush years, the Democrats (and fellow travelers to the left of the mainstream Democrats) were the stronger purveyors of hate-filled rhetoric. > > The usual response to this is that Bush _deserved_ it, and thus it’s excusable. You seem to have omitted the word “violent” from your charge of Democrat rhetoric. Intentional or an oversight? In any event, I would welcome some specific examples of Dem action during the Bush admin that you consider the equal of what you acknowledge Rpubs have done recently. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/80 "2011-01-11T19:32:19Z")
Seems like everyone is using the Tuscon events to now say: Has the political rhetoric gotten out of hand? Will Sarah Palin just admit that she’s going overboard? What are the correlations between these things? Nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=5)