Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?

Pot, meet kettle:

Yikes! A conservative blogger has an opinion. I surrender!

The amount of violent rhetoric has increased significantly. To what degree, I don’t know; I didn’t really pay attention to it until her “don’t retreat, reload” comment.

Its not so much violent imagery, which is as American as an apple grenade. Its the wild exaggeration of the issues. The extreme base that the Pubbies are pandering to foster the delusion that these are the times that try mens souls, that somehow Health Care Reform is the Stamp Act and Bunker Hill all rolled into one. What ought to be a dull, actuarial argument between accountants is somehow patriotic Americans resisting a crushing, tyrannical oppressor. Obama? That’s like morphing Dennis Kucinich into a stormtrooper.

The Republicans could not have won without firing up the nutbar base, so they did, they made their bargain and mounted the tiger to ride. They have to hope they can control them and we have to hope they are right.

But the extreme rhetoric, violent and otherwise, is part and parcel of an effort to dramatize and exaggerate. They must convince their people that the dread crunch of liberal jackboots draws ever nearer, we’re coming for their guns, their daughters, and their health care. Its all crap, of course, on the same level of political fantasy as pudgy middle aged men running around in camo and pretending they are tough guys. Sexual fantasy often leads to bad results, political fantasy, much worse.

I thought the left was supposed to be unaware of how guns work.

Your response makes no sense in connection with my question.

I disagree. 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.

Attempted murder of a political figure by a crazy person (together with many others) is not really an “assassination” either to my mind; even assuming it is in some semantic sense, it clearly isn’t the sort of “assassination” which ought inevitably to create a political discussion, since his motives appear on the surface at least to have noting in common with anything recognized as political.

Isn’t he a little short for a stormtrooper?

So I could say that Nancy Pelosi is responsible for at least 60% of it. And it have the same weight and worthiness of your comment. :rolleyes:

He mentioned specifically that he was targeting the Congresswoman: Occam’s razor demands that there is at least an internal thought process that led him to this target. To think otherwise you’d need to provide evidence that he literally arrived at his target via a phone book or other random process.

Whereas the child he killed was caught in the crossfire. Since you were demanding to know his motivations for killing her, you seem to be unaware that guns do not always hit their intended target.

Boy, I really had hoped in GD there would have been at least SOME attempt to rely upon some kind of comparison other than isolated datapoints and entirely unsupported generalizations. I knw there are groups/individuals who do things like “fact check” political messages. Had hoped there might be something similar WRT “emotional content.”

Here’s another tack. I think Sarah Palin relies pretty heavily on aggressive, violent, and weapons-related imagery in conjunction with individuals and causes she disagrees with.
Do you disagree with my characterization?
If not, please name a liberal individual or outlet of similar status who you believe relies on such imagery as much or more than SP. Then I will name another conservative, and you can name another liberal, and so on.

You certainly could, and people are free to decide for themselves if Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric is actually as violent as Palin’s.

Good luck with that.

What crossfire? Have you read any reports of the event?

No way. 300% at least.
Think back to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. The biggest threat in any of them was some guy trying to get into a Bush rally with an anti-Bush shirt. Did anyone bring weapons to any rallies back then? Did either of the Democrat candidates, or Bush, use such violent rhetoric?
I agree that before Palin the radio freaks led the charge. Remember what happened to Republican leaders who tried to challenge the mighty Rush? But Palin was the first national candidate who made this kind of rhetoric acceptable outside of the fever swamps of the radio right, and so she bears a lot of the blame. If she had the slightest bit of ethics she’d be leading the right in backing off the rhetoric instead of justifying the map and saying “it’s not my fault.”

If he was targeting nine-year olds he could have gone to that Safeway (or a school) any time. Why did he go during a political event? Really stupid comment there.

This is somewhat dated, but Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens on at least a few occasions (and I seem to recall that he wrote letters of support for them, too). The group is listed as a neo-Confederate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Blame for what?

The rhetoric? If so, other than potentially being politically insensitive or incorrect. What does the increased rhetoric cause? Hurt feelings?

The violence that occured in Tuscon? Not even by a stretch, can you find any causual link between the two.

Wow! now that’s a stretch. 11 years ago, Trent Lott speaking at the invitation of a group is equivalent to the Republican Party recruiting such group? Not even close to the assertion made by TriPolar.

I don’t know. But you, Ludovic, spark240, seem to know exactly was going on in the mind of Loughner.

Here is a primer of the violent imagery and violent acts commited by lefties over the past decade. And, don’t forget the book and movie about the assassination of GW Bush.