If that’s meant to be a response to my post, it’s awfully evasive.
Michelle Malkin? Wow. And you’re not kidding, are you?
I’m pretty sure that Really Not All That Bright would attribute at least 60% of that to Sarah Palin.
Evasive of what? The impact of using violent imagery in political speech?
I said in the part you cut out. The blame for enabling other politicians to increase the violent rhetoric. The blame for making it okay to bring guns to rallies. I did not mention direct responsibility for this incident, so I’ll thank you to not edit my post to make it seem I did.
What’s wrong with violent rhetoric? They’re metaphors used to make a point. Most lucid sane people understand metaphors. I even get the ones referred to in Yorick73’s link.
What’s wrong with people exorcising their right to bear arms and educating others on such rights? Please show me a cite where people that brought guns to rally’s intended to cause other people harm with them?
If you were offered a chance to speak in front of this group, would you accept? Why or why not?
Here are some of the precepts of the group, taken directly from their website:
They go on to talk about efforts to “debunk” Martin Luther King’s “Christ-like” support in popular culture, brag that they are the “Only group advocating for “white rights” that attracts elected figures as speakers,” and relay some interesting findings on the Jews.
News flash: the political arguments have already long ago walked out the barn door-and it wasn’t “liberals” who allowed them to get out.
I instead see it as using the tragedy as an opportunity to point out what has long needed to be said-that prominent conservative commentators and even politicians have been spewing vile hateful violent rhetoric for awhile now, to the possible detriment of our country. And, while it certainly is true that we, at the present, are not privy to the mindset of the assassin, even if it turns out that he is certifiably looney tunes (I’ve seen a lot of armchair psychoanalysis, most of it unconvincing), in conjunction with any presumed association in the mind of the killer with right-wing pundits and their “cheerleading”, his insanity would NOT be a “Absolve Ourselves of all Responsibility” card for the right.
And, I’m just curious: at what point would they (and their apologists) finally be compelled to admit that their hateful speech does in fact correlate, even in the most miniscule and infinitesimal way, with the latest act of right-wing terrorism (which is what this was, on the second count, even if on the first count we’re not sure yet)? Does an armed militia need to go massacre 100 Latinos in Los Angeles before they finally say, “Okay, perhaps we need to dial it back a bit”? Or does somebody need to blow up an Islamic community in an apartment building in New York, killing 500, before they finally see the light? And even if each and every instance of right wing vitriol is precisely counterbalanced by a counterpart on the left (highly doubtful), why can’t Palin & Co, take the moral high road and refuse to engage in such speech-two wrongs don’t make a right, ya know. Please enlighten me on these questions.
I saw the Dems use of target imagery a reaction to the righties use. They sure did not start it. But when it proved effective in generating enthusiasm among the "target audience’, the Dems started to respond by using it too. But the Dems use was no where near as up front and Palin’s and many other Repubs . Sarah and her re-load surely puts a lie to her weaseling out of her potential responsibility for lowering the discourse and overt use of gun imagery.
She is not directly responsible for the Arizona shooting. This was a nut case who had the ability to buy a gun when he was mentally unstable. You can spread that blame around .
I would not. But the fact that Trent Lott, did is still a far cry from the Republican Party recruiting them.
As a personal anecdote, I know for a fact that at a Reagan campaign stop in Connecticut during the 1980 presidential race, there were at least three handguns in the audience. We probably would have gotten into a lot of trouble if anyone searched us.
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.
So your whole point is: It was the conservatives that started it! :rolleyes:
Your allegation that the shooting in Tuscon is “right wing terrorism” is misguided and shows your inability to discern fact from fiction.
When the Majority Leader of the Senate endorses a racist organization, it’s worth standing up and taking notice.
And removing him from office. Which is what happened. Because one of the top three leaders of the party was paying complements to a racist organization during fairly regular appearances.
If a guy goes wild with a bow and arrow at a Republican congressional event, the Democrats are going to feel terrible.
What the hell does this have to do with this thread? Go start your own if you want to put Lott on a pole. Your cite still doesn’t show any actual recruitment by the GOP of hate groups.
You asked for a cite. I have a cite. If you are so embarrassed by someone showing a connection between a top Republican leader and a racist group, take me to the Pit.
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. I leave it to readers to decide whether Yorick has found a valid example of American left-wing violent imagery or not.
Semantics? you feel the symbol for a general target has the same sort of power as the symbol for a rifle target?
considering the history in the US…
They are both metaphors and a rational sane person knows that they aren’t literal.
Did you think that Sarah Palin’s map meant that she and others were actually going to kill those candidates?