Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?

[Malthus]

@spark240

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.

From what I understand, it seems likely he specifically targeted the congresswoman (rather than someone else) because, at a previous meet-and-greet in 2007, she had responded dismissively to the bizzare question he put to her - something about what politics means if language has no meaning (I’m going by memory here).

In short, it appears she became the focus and trigger of his murderous rage, not because of her politics, but because of her public (to his mind) humiliation of him personally.

I suspect that when he’s questioned by mental health professionals (as he must be now - a not guilty by reason of insanity plea is pretty likely, verging on certain), they will find that what is significant about her is that she’s a prominent authority figure and representitive of the government - about which he’d grown increasingly paranoid and delusional.

A federal judge would have done just as nicely, one suspects.

[Dinsdale]

@Bricker

I love how the rules keep changing. …

You seek to limit the inquiry to leaders of the Demoratic party.

Which is it?

To the extent the OP has ANY say in how the “rules” are set …

[magellan01]

@elucidator

Michelle Malkin? Wow. And you’re not kidding, are you?

Huh? What does it matter who compiled the information? Did you even bother to click the link. It’s basically just a compendium of links of hate and vitriol coming from the left.

[TriPolar]

@Bricker

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.

What are the changing rules? The Republicans bear no responsibility for support of groups that use violent imagery? So am I assume both parties are squeaky clean because they don’t produce the images? Why are people who hire contract killers in jail, they didn’t actually kill anybody?

[Bricker]

@Voyager

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.

Oh, so vandalism counts?

Then how about this?

And I guess you forgot this?

And what about this?

This charming tactic?

I awaiting the backpedaling, redefinitions, and moving of goalposts.

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?

No, Palin has no such obligation. It would be nice of her to do, but it’s by no means an obligation.

[TriPolar]

@magellan01

Huh? What does it matter who compiled the information? Did you even bother to click the link. It’s basically just a compendium of links of hate and vitriol coming from the left.

It matters because Michelle Malkin has produced a plethora of false information in the past.

[Bricker]

@Dinsdale

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.

Who burned a swastika into the lawn of a Bush-Cheney supporter? Elves?

[Dinsdale]

And probably not here or there, but I happen to work for a component of the federal government in which an employees’ union recently won an unfair labor practices claim based - in part - on claims of failure to bargain WRT security issues re: the construction of offices “in parts of the country where so-called “patriot” paramilitary groups, hostile to government employees, operate.”

Before the weekend, I would have considered the “security concerns” described silly. But right now I’m not thrilled to have this big ground-level window at my back… :rolleyes:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Wilbo523

I’m pretty sure that Really Not All That Bright would attribute at least 60% of that to Sarah Palin.

I’m pretty sure you’re jabbering aimlessly now.

[Fear_Itself]

@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.

I’m with you so far…

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.

Aw, then your trolley falls off the track when you simply forget to include “violent” in this part. Oopsy, just an oversight, like the DLC/DNC business. We are not talking about vitriolic, hate-filled criticism, we are talking about violence, which Republicans have cornered the market on. You will search futiley for Democratic candidates that spew violent imagery with anywhere near the frequency of Republican candidates.

The Patriot Post, a conservative mouthpiece endorsed by **Dick Armey, Bill Bennett, Fred Thompson **and other conservative standard bearers, still has the Liberal Hunting License on their marketing website. Haw-haw-haw, how funny, let’s go shoot us some liberals today. Until you disavow Armey, et al., your false equivalency is meaningless.

[TriPolar]

@Bricker

Who burned a swastika into the lawn of a Bush-Cheney supporter? Elves?

Where is your evidence that it was Democrats, or any group supported by Democrats?

[Omar_Little]

@Voyager

Did they encourage people to go to Presidential events with guns? Looks like.

What speech or writing of Palin’s encouraged this behavior? Her interview with Katie Couric. At the time of the presidential rally when this occurred, I can’t remember Palin saying anything other than “lipstick on a pig”. And IIRC, the gentleman carrying the gun, legally in an open carry state, was trying to make a point about 2nd amendment rights, not about taking out Obama or promoting violence against anyone.

[Dinsdale]

@Bricker

Who burned a swastika into the lawn of a Bush-Cheney supporter? Elves?

I don’t know? Who was it? Was it a prominent liberal commentator? Was it a democratic candidate or officeholder?

You REALLY think this type of individual action is even CLOSE to what I tried to get at in this thread?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Who burned a swastika into the lawn of a Bush-Cheney supporter? Elves?

Since the article you posted notes that swastikas were burned on neighboring lawns but does not mention their owners’ political preferences, I don’t see what conclusion you can draw.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

And what about this?

Um, what about it? The vandals burned George W. Bush and John Kerry in effigy.

[Omar_Little]

@TriPolar

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.

Your list is laughable. Tea Parties?

[TriPolar]

@Wilbo523

Your list is laughable. Tea Parties?

Your* refudiation *is laughable. The Tea Party has a strong overlap with the other organization’s mentioned. They favored 2nd amendment solutions, encouraged carrying guns to political rallies, portrayed the President as Hitler, expressed unbridled racism, used intimidation as a political tactic, and made it clear that their only objection to government spending was when money went to those people.

[Bricker]

@TriPolar

Where is your evidence that it was Democrats, or any group supported by Democrats?

My evidence is the equal, if not superior, in persuasive weight to your evidence that the most recent tragedy has anything to do with the current strong rhetoric in use by the right.

See, this is what sucks. You assert, as a matter of “everyone knows” that the dots be connected for you side, and then demand rigorous proof that incidents on the other side be supported.

[InterestedObserver]

Well, I’m listening right now to my local progressive (liberal) talk radio, as I often do, and I have never heard anything even close to the hateful, fearful, violent rhetoric and imagry I have on right-wing talk radio.

I did a paper for a class not too long ago, examining both the proposition that the U.S. has a “liberal bias media” and the veracity of the information coming from the “right-wing media”. As a result, I had to expose myself to WEEKS of right-wing talk radio, news, and writings. I literally got headaches from the level of anger, hatred and paranoia involved. :smack:

Left-wing talk radio, by contrast, usually refrains from such hostility…they discuss, get excited about issues, hold strong perspectives, and sometimes even poke fun at the “righties”. There is very little to no screaming, vicious name-calling, or the sort of personal attacks almost constantly heard from the right. (“Liberalism is a mental illness”, “Obama is Hitler/the Antichrist!”, “stupid, evil liberals!” “They want to take away your religion, your gun rights, your first-born so they can sacrifice it to Satan/Socialism”, etc…ok, that last bit of the last sentence was made up, but it’s the only bit that was.)

It is much less…PERSONAL. Much less a case of painting things in terms of war, life and death, and of those with different political views (or religions or lifestyles) as THE ENEMY. Thing is, when you put things in terms of personal animosity, resentment, FEAR, ANGER, the eventual logical conclusion is that those you fear/are angry towards are BAD and maybe better off dead. I mean, if you villify someone/some entire group to that degree, is it not “logical” that you come to see them as something other than a decent human being like yourself?

For example, the guy talking now just said, in between taking phone calls, “I just think we need to work on making a better society”, in a perfectly calm, reasonable tone of voice. He (and other hosts) also take calls from those expressing all sides/views and allowing them TO talk…quite unlike many right-wing hosts I’ve heard who attack, mock and hang up on callers who challenge their views.:rolleyes:

So no, in my educated opinion (as a progressive Independent), NOT equal on “both”(all) sides/parties.

My conclusion in my paper, BTW, was that the U.S. actually has a media, overall, which leans fairly strongly towards the RIGHT/RIGHT OF CENTER, based on every reliable study/source I could locate looking at measurable factors such as personal views of journalists, percentage of think-tank cites, bias of stories in a broad selection of major sources over a set time-span, etc… Oh, and that Beck, Limbaugh and Fox are full of shit MUCH more often than not and certainly more than the outlets/sources they decry as “liberally biased”. :dubious: I got an A, BTW, which was based not on my conclusions but on the quality of the research I did (it was a course in rationality, thinking and logic) and my presentation of it.

[Omar_Little]

@TriPolar

Your* refudiation *is laughable. The Tea Party has a strong overlap with the other organization’s mentioned. They favored 2nd amendment solutions, encouraged carrying guns to political rallies, portrayed the President as Hitler, expressed unbridled racism, used intimidation as a political tactic, and made it clear that their only objection to government spending was when money went to those people.

So anyone that supports the 2nd amendment is a hater? Got it.