Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?

[Bricker]

@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.

Cite? Cite? Cite?

This isn’t debate. This is verbal (and written) crap.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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

Yes. Because Kerry was too far to the right, according to them.

[Omar_Little]

@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.

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.

clap clap clap

[Bricker]

@InterestedObserver

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.

And what data did you find on the personal views of journalists? Were they pretty balanced between Democrats and Republican?

[sqweels]

@yorick73

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.

http://michellemalkin.com/

So conservatives have fielded an entire industry determined to dig up as much dirt on their opponents as possible.

Like I always say, they dwell upon the splinter in their neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

[Peremensoe]

@Malthus

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.

I agree. And I also suspect a Republican Representative may have sufficed. I do believe that it’s mostly Republicans stoking the fires right now, but I don’t believe it’s only Democrats in danger of being burned.

I did not mean to say that Giffords’ specific political positions were necessarily relevant–simply that acting violently upon an inchoate paranoia about government is a political act, may have been impelled by recent tones of prominent political speakers, and must lead to a discussion of the act’s implications for our politics at large.

[TriPolar]

@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.

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.

The usual response to this is that Bush deserved it, and thus it’s excusable.

Where is your cite for this? You attempted to associate Democrats with people who vandalized Republican property, and failed.

@Bricker

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.

I made no such assertion. You have though, and failed to provide proof.

@Wilbo523

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

I did not say that, and I am a 2nd amendment supporter.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes. Because Kerry was too far to the right, according to them.

Um… cite? Your link says no such thing.

[Dinsdale]

@Bricker

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.

I know you were replying to another poster, but my OP did not in any way attemt to blame this recent incident on political tragedy.

In a precious post, you sure seemed to acknowledge that Repubs recently had used more violent and aggressive imagery, but you alleged similar (tho omitting “violent”) actions by Dems under Bush. The rhetoric I was referring to (and which I thought you had acknowledged) was certainly more high-profile and organized than the incidents you have cited.

To use a couple of your favorite terms, it sure seems as tho you are either backpedalling or moving the goalposts here.

[Omar_Little]

@Dinsdale

In a precious post…

Now that evokes imagery.

[InterestedObserver]

@Wilbo523

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

Nope…anyone who speaks of "2nd amendment “solutions” to political or other civic disputes or, imo, goes to a political rally packing weapons in plain sight and/or combat gear is clearly expressing “hate”. They can bullshit all they want; packing blatent heat to a political rally is nothing more than a THREAT. They are thugs and punks, not supporters of the Constitution. :mad:

[Omar_Little]

@InterestedObserver

Nope…anyone who speaks of "2nd amendment “solutions” to political or other civic disputes or, imo, goes to a political rally packing weapons in plain sight and/or combat gear is clearly expressing “hate”. They can bullshit all they want; packing blatent heat to a political rally is nothing more than a THREAT. They are thugs and punks, not supporters of the Constitution. :mad:

And while you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are wrong. I hope for your sake this isn’t the type of rationale you used in your research paper.

[sqweels]

@Wilbo523

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

What do you call someone who thinks the phrase “2nd Amendment solutions” is simply advocacy of keeping the 2A on the books?

And yes, a large proportion of people who support the 2A use rhetoric is ascribing the motivations of people who support more gun regulation that can readily be characterized as hateful.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@InterestedObserver

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?

Did you happen to hear someone calling a teenage girl the worst person in the world? Or that someone on the right is a big fat idiot? Or posing the other side’s candidate with blood on his lips? Or doctoring a photo of the other side’s first lady to show a black eye? Were those personal?

[Omar_Little]

Again…does anyone seriously think that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle were imploring people to actually take up weapons against opposing candidates?

Sure it creates imagery…the horror! But do you really think they intended for citizens supporting their cause, to take up arms against the candidates they were campaigning against?

If so…have the attorney general build a case against them. If not, then I guess the 1st amendment stands.

[Blalron]

@Bricker

The usual response to this is that Bush deserved it, and thus it’s excusable.

Cite? Please don’t respond with some anonymous liberal blogger defending it. Give us examples of elected officials (or those on who’ve won the Democratic primary for a major federal or state office) who’ve defended that rhetoric.

So here are some statistics to give us a picture of what’s going on:

@Fivethirtyeight

The number of threats against members of Congress seemed to have been on the decline throughout most of the past decade. There is some evidence, however, that their number has increased significantly in the past year or two. The Sergent at Arms, for instance, counted just 29 threats against senators in 2009, rather than 49 in 2010. And there was a 300 percent increase in such threats against all members of Congress (both representatives and senators) in the first few months of 2010, according to the same office.

The journalist Ronald Kessler, meanwhile, wrote in his bestselling book that there has been a 400 percent increase in the number of threats against the White House since Barack Obama took office.

If the data shows that Democratic politicians are receiving more death threats, wouldn’t you have to concede that one side is more violent than the other?

[InterestedObserver]

@Bricker

And what data did you find on the personal views of journalists? Were they pretty balanced between Democrats and Republican?

The surveys and studies did not typically define views based on party, but on self-identification AND examination of particular positions which could be objectively ranked as “left” or “right” based on generally understood definitions (such as being in favor of universal health care, say, or opposed to higher corporate tax rates)

The findings were that even though most self-identified as “moderates” or “liberals”, their responses on the particulars placed a majority firmly to the right of center (and to the right of even a majority of Americans as determined in similar surveys and polls). One conclusion was that their above average income level might have had something to do with their views. Also, many cited the limitations placed on them by their corporate employers wrt the angle/bias evident in coverage.

I don’t have the time right now to pull up the links…gotta get out the door and to class! :eek: But I will try to come back later and do so.

[sqweels]

@Bricker

And what data did you find on the personal views of journalists? Were they pretty balanced between Democrats and Republican?

Here we are talking about the egregious level of mean-spirited bashing, smearing and demonizing that the right-wing media actually puts on the air, and you’re quibbling about “personal” views.

You have to make like a detective to uncover any liberal bias in the MSM. Meanwhile, the RWM hits you over thehead with theirs.

What are the personal views of a typical Democrat? What does it say about the Democratic party if indeed most journalists are Dems?

It’s been a while since I’ve heard liberals called “bleeding hearts” (with one recent exception during the DADT debate). But that’s not because the term no longer fits as an exagerration of their views–liberals still care about the poor and minorities. It’s that the right found there’s more profit (literally and electorally) in characterizing libs as ruthless totalitarians bent on trampling on your freedoms.

[Lightnin]

@Wilbo523

Again…does anyone seriously think that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle were imploring people to actually take up weapons against opposing candidates?

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Were they imploring people to take arms against the other side? No, I don’t think so. However, they were certainly willing to embrace inflammatory rhetoric in order to score political points. I don’t think they expect(ed) anyone to actually do anything*- but they sure do like the anti-Liberal emotions. Gets 'em good ratings, ya know? It’d sure be a shame if someone were to take the rhetoric too seriously, but hey, there are no *actual *calls to arms, right?

*[SUB]Personally, I don’t think that the shooting in Tucson was a result of Palin’s- or anyone else’s- rhetoric. I think the shooter was just nuts. However, I do think this is a good wakeup call, a good opportunity to say, “hey, maybe we should ratchet it back a bit before someone takes what we say a bit too seriously”.[/SUB]

[Voyager]

@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.

If Obama, or any leading Democrat, appeared before a convention of Black Panther equivalents today I’d object just as much. I don’t recall seeing anyone claimed Lott raised the temperature, though. Appearing before a hate group might be a good thing if Lott had the guts to attack their premises. Did he, or did he treat them as part of his natural constituency?

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

Which is it?

Violent speech by random bloggers doesn’t count. Even speech by small town radio talk show nuts doesn’t count. Speech by national nuts wouldn’t count unless political leaders are afraid of crossing the host, and unless the host gets invited to speak at conventions and stuff.

And Sarah Palin is a former, failed VP candidate. She holds no leadership position in the Republican party.

Give me a fucking break. That’s like saying Richard Nixon in 1966 meant nothing. Or Reagan in 1978.
Who is the leader of the Republican party these days? Ordinarily it would be Bush the Younger, but he is a nonperson now. Bush the elder is too liberal. McCain is marginalized. Boehner isn’t, because he doesn’t seem interested in running for president. Huckabee? Romney? Steele? Palin isn’t, but she is the leader of a major faction, and as close as we’re going to get to a leader right now. You may not like her, good for you, but that doesn’t make her irrelevant.