It depends on the context. If there were images of nooses over african american candidate’s districts, there’d be near unanimous agreement on this board that this was unacceptable and it must have been from some vicious hate group like the KKK.
But gun sights? It’s obvious from all these threads that there’s not a consensus on that. When I look at all her rhetoric, taken as a whole… that Obama is “pallin around with terrorists” that Democrats are trying to bring us “Death Panels”, and then I see the gunsights over the districts, it’s easy to see how a Palin follower could draw conclusion that Democrats ought to be killed to prevent them from slaughtering old people and bringing us Sharia law.
Honestly I don’t care if anyone admits “doing anything wrong”. They can deny all they want to and I’d expect them to - after all there is no … uh … smoking gun … here. The issue from here on out is if the rhetoric does or does not become a bit more within the pale. And we will see if it does or not. I am guessing it will for a few months just because it will be being scrutinized, and then go back to how things have been. But that’s just a guess.
As I have explained before, I think Angle’s comments about Second Amendment remedies could only have one meaning. However, I am inclined to think that she was merely trying to play the “yes man” to a whacko radio host, and I doubt she had any clear idea what she was saying.
But there is only one reasonable interpretation of what she said. The only question is the degree to which she understood she was agreeing with the concept of overthrowing the government.
In any case, this is not a double standard. Statements made by Obama and Angle no more have to be given benefit of the doubt on an equal basis than someone has to give equal benefit of the doubt to statements made by Chris Rock and David Duke. Just because Chris Rock uses shocking language on race to make valid points doesn’t mean that I must credit Duke’s use of shocking language with also being social commentary worth listening to.
You just can’t seem to wrap your mind around the possibility that a film, book, or any piece of "art’ can carry a political message. Also, I’m not sure if you are naive or if you are trying to be coy about the fact that both the book and the movie play to the far-left wet dream of GW Bush being assassinated. So, yes, I put both the book and the movie on the same level with any other commentary.
I’m not the one fascinated with them. I mentioned them both in addition to a list of left-wing lunacy. You, on the other hand, have kept this discussion going for 6 pages. Maybe you should look in the mirror.
Please…enlighten me. It seems you believe Palin was trying to instigate violence. Is that what you really believe?
Most people here seem to have adopted the position that to concede even the smallest point means instant death for them and their puppies. I appreciate someone bucking the trend.
Time to get past the title and read the fucking post! I’m not insulting your intelligence or reading ability but I am starting to wonder why you are attempting to go down this path when the OP clearly did not narrow the debate to the two parties. Since you spend all of your time arguing this point and simply cannot be bothered to read the OP I’ll quote the relevant sentence:
About half of those things I either don’t approve of or think is particularly wonderful in the first place, and of the remaining half I’m unsure that liberalsim is responsible for half of it. So maybe a quarter of the things you mention are worthy of thanking “fucking LIBERALS” for. But even if I were to grant everything you mentioned to the wonders of liberalism, they’re nowhere near worth the negative impact that liberalism has had upon this country in the last 40 years - an impact that has not only resulted in what is probably the most coarse, vulgar and low class society in the western world, but which is literally responsible for millions of lost and ruined lives, lives that wouldn’t have been lost or ruined in the society that existed prior to the late sixties, the problems and inequities of that time notwithstanding.
If you really want to examine the effect of speech by elected officials on the behavior of people who are afraid, feel disenfranchised, are crazy, or whatever, you have to go farther than to simply look at ‘violent’ imagery. You’d have to look at speech that is divisive, that attempts to marginalize those who are out of power or characterize them as un-American or otherwise sow the seeds of class and partisan anger.
As an example of Democrat leaders’ speech to that effect, I can offer Obama’s recent claim that the Republicans in Congress were ‘hostage takers’. That both invokes violent imagery and is divisive at a moment that should have been inclusive.
We could also look at the societal effects of politicians who attempt to rile up their constituents with claims that they are being disenfranchised, or that they need to rise up and fight back, or that grave injustices are being perpetrated. Class warfare rhetoric can lead to violence, and has many times in the past - including in the U.S.
Then you have race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who have taken every possible opportunity to increase the level of anger in their supporters so they could gain more political power.
‘Community Organizers’ are often specifically liberal activists who go out into the community and foster a sense of outrage in order to induce political action.
I think all of this is acceptable in a free society, just as the right’s rhetoric is acceptable. But if you’re going to attack the other side, you’d better be prepared to defend the behavior of yours.
Jeepers peepers, enough already. I was thinking of spending another 20 minutes discussing how and why I think you are missing my point, but I’m sick of all the bickering, so I’ll turn it over to the OP. Let’s ask ask him if he accepts your cite as relevant. I’ll be perfectly fine with whatever he decides.
OP, if you are listening: Death of a President: valid example of left-wing aggressively violent imagery, or not?
This is not about what the OP thinks is aggressively violent. If the OP had the final say then why would we all be here in the first place. My point, which you still fail to get, is that you keep narrowing the group that the OP was referring to. I’ve pointed this out numerous times and you either fail to understand this point or you are deliberately misdirecting for some reason.
Got it; “elected officials”. So I’m expecting specific examples now of “dangerous” speech by elected officials.
The exact quote from President Obama’s press conference (White House, December 7th, 2010):
“I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”
Though it is possible to characterize this rather vague comparison as “divisive” in isolation (a favorite trick of political spin), the fact of the matter is that it is describing a process which resulted in a real-world compromise, which by definition is pretty inclusive. I agree the metaphor is poorly chosen, but it’s hardly confrontational. If (given the ridiculous examples below) this is the best you can offer on left/right rhetorical equivalence, you are clutching at straws
Sarah Palin, GOP’s Ronald Reagan Fundraising Dinner, Iowa, September 2010: “It is time to take our country back…it may take some renegades going rogue to get us there.”
Y’know, I’m sure we can trade quotes back and forth on this, but I think that somehow missed the point.
I was not aware there was an election for chief race-baiter; what public office, exactly, have either of the men been elected to (ooh, you got me; Jesse Jackson was the shadow senator from DC in the 90’s, which is at least as powerful/influential as House Speaker, President, or Fox News Pundit:-)).
I’d yell “cite” if I weren’t laughing so hard. Do the organizers of local Tea Party groups qualify as “activists who go out into the community and foster a sense of outrage in order to induce political action”? BTW neither position is a public office.
Here I wholeheartedly agree. But to be fair, folks like Sarah Palin who’ve taken to Internet video defending their “rights” are engaged in a shell game. I don’t seriously question their right to use such violent rhetoric, but I certainly question their judgement. Just like I question the judgement of anyone who thinks the exaggerated rhetoric of a few left-wing bloggers and commentators is even remotely equivalent to the virulent-yet-routine spew of the GOP leadership.
