Some people might have dismissed it for that reason. I suspect most dismissed it because it’s a bunch of random schmucks doing what random schmucks do. It’s a perfectly reasonable response to Fear Itself complaining about “Liberal Hunting Permits”.
It’s a totally worthless response to people claiming about prominent Republican/conservative politicians/pundits.
Sorry, Bricker, another major fail for you. magellan01 was able to actually produce a cite. You’ve offered nothing but false cites so far. I won’t bother using you as a source anymore. Imagine! A lawyer who doesn’t understand the concept of hearsay.
The problem with your statement is that it presupposes your argument to be true. Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are said to have great influence. (But I thought we needed to have elected officials, and entertainers didn’t count?)
OK, let’s see. Chuck Shumer, in 2005, called the effort to change the Senate rules to require only a simply majority for judicial confirmation a “constitutional crisis.” Now, that’s not so warlike or violent, although it’s certainly alarmist. But he didn’t stop there. No, he said it amounted to “evaporating” the core of the Republic by use of a “nuclear option.” (At 1:18 on the video).
Surely you’ll agree that Huffington Post has an influential spot amongst liberal opinion-makers? Headline: "Dems Fire Opening Salvo in Budget Wars".
President Obama: “The insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking out their massive war chest to marshal their forces for one last fight…” (From here. How militaristic and warmingering can you get?
Democratic senate hopeful’s campaign kickoff described by Washington Post: “Democrat’s Bid Begins With a Salvo,” from here.
“Oh, but those are all just metaphors!” I hear you cry. Right?
Yes. The phrases used by and about Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, those are secret code words calling for actual armed response; the gentle Democrats are merely using peaceful tactics that may have inadvertantly used violent imagery…but ONLY as metaphor.
Pluck the log from your eye.
Other than Julian Assange, right?
:rolleyes:
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Imagine, a lay person that doesn’t understand hearsay. Pretty common, actually.
Please provide objective evidence that Republicans use aggressively violent imagery more than Democrats.
I am afraid I cannot accept your attempt to shift the burden of proof like this.
If you want to play the game that way, let’s set our goalposts firmly enough to be sure that there will be no shifting later.
[ul][li]Provide a clear definition of what you mean by “militia types”.[/li][li]Demonstrate that they support Palin, and have been influenced by their rhetoric.[/li][li]Demonstrate (this is important) that they exist in significant numbers[/li][li]Demonstrate that they have engaged in violence as a result of Palin’s rhetoric[/ul][/li]Etc.
This game of dueling anecdotes proves nothing, as I have said. If you want me to believe this is not simply Selective Perception by the SDMB, Part MMCLXIV, then let’s see why I should buy it.
Regards,
Shodan
Who pulled what of who’s ass?
And THAT, in turn, is a valid criticism of it. I would respond to that, as I did above, by providing some links to statements made from prominent persons, and by questioning the artificial and self-serving distinction between elected politicians and other opinion makers.
TriPolar explicitly dismissed it because it came from Michelle Malkin:
See?
Regards,
Shodan
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/fearing-tea-party-violence-arizona-republicans-resign/
This Repub and a few others blame the rhetoric, specifically the tea bagger rhetoric. It made them afraid enough to resign. They do not find gun imagery aimed at them is harmless. It scares them and there is a good reason for it.
Perfect example. Did Sarah Palin call for Julian Assange to be assassinated?
She said:
Is that a call for assassination? Or a call for capture?
How do you know?
I don’t believe I ever made any such assertion in this thread, nor did I claim access to any such objective evidence.
And Bricker, thank you for FINALLY offering up at least something that can be addressed, instead of just whining. I will attempt to examine the examples you have given, and try to compare them to what I perceive coming from the other side of the aisle.
And yes, such terms are metaphors when used by Dems - same as when used by Repubs. But I feel that meaningful distinctions might be possible based on the metaphors chosen and the manner and forum in which they are expressed. Until I compare the examples you have given to examples from the right, I will not know if such distinctions are valid.
I am not making such a distinction. I am making a distinction between opinion makers and everyone else. Malkin’s piece is entirely composed of images, screen captures, etc. involving Joe Schmoes.
Agreed. That’s why I said yours was a valid criticism of it, and why I showed that TriPolar did not object to the cite based on that meritorious complaint, but the mere fact that whatever the cite said, Malkin was the source.
Quite correct. I don’t consider ‘because Michelle Malkin said so’ to be worthy of consideration. Also, do you understand the* concept *of hearsay, or have you only memorized the definition?
This is an excellent idea, as well as truthiness in advertising. You should defiinitely precede your nostalgic views with those words, on every occassion.
I’m not trying to make an arbitrary classification just for the sake of special pleading. The reason why I think it makes a difference is that elected officials actually have the endorsement of their party and had a numerical majority (or at least a plurality) of the people in their region endorse them. The very fact that they were elected, in spite of or because of their statements, tells us something about the group of people that selected them. That they were willing to pull the lever (or fill in the bubble) for people making hatefull statements.
We can’t draw any such conclusions a larger group of liberals or democrats from what a celebrity says, or the worst post you can find from an anonymous poster on DailyKos.
Wow, you can’t even get an insult correct!
It doesn’t bug me at all either. I am also not up in arms over the Palin map or references to “lock and load”, or any other political rhetoric that has knotted the panties of many on these boards. If you go back and read my first post I was responding to the OP’s request to show that the left is also involved in violent imagery.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that a work of art that depicts violence against a sitting president is okay since it is art (since violence is inherent in the medium), but using a term like “lock and load” or a graph with gunsights in it is not okay?
Of course I understand it. In depth.
In law, hearsay is admissible in many situations. At a probable cause hearing, for example, hearsay is routinely admissible. That’s most analogous to what’s going on here: a cite is not absolute proof, but merely shifts the burden to the other side.
The idea that hearsay is utterly inadmissible in all contexts is a laughable one, often seen espoused by people whose legal training consists of Ally McBeal and a few Law and Order episodes. There are plenty of legal contexts in which hearsay is admissible, and in a discussion such as this, there’s no analog to be drawn between excluding hearsay evidence and Michelle Malkin.
(Interestingly enough, there are other legal concepts you might bring into play, such as the finding that a particular witness is unreliable as a matter of law. This has nothing to do with hearsay but is pretty much what you seek to do here: a finding that because this witness has been proven to lie so often before, or because the testimony of the witness is per se incredible, the testimony so unreliable that it won’t even be heard by the finder of fact. If you wanted to make such an argument, you’d be on solid ground from an analogy point of view.)
And a moment’s thought on your part would make this point clear: presumably you would have accepted a cite from, say, Huff Post – which would have been no more or less hearsay than Malkin’s – right?
What have you got against Ally McBeal, eh?