See. Right there. Candidates. Instant qualification. You can’t even bring yourself to completely denounce it. You want some form of equal measure.
Simply put. Either that kind of talk is wrong, or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter who is doing it or to what scale. Apparently you just want to score points.
The distinction of it being a candidate is important. Of course it is wrong if some lone-nut poster on the daily kos says something violent and crazy, but it is much more wrong when a major candidate engages in it and when the Republican party uses fear, racism and violence to pander to a significant element of its base.
Can you honestly not see a distinction?
So you’re on board with getting rid of private insurance companies and socializing health care? Excellent.
Doesn’t matter to me. Why does it matter to you? Why is it so important to you that someone be more wrong?
It is not an issue of being more wrong; the issue is that politicians and pundits using violent imagery and rhetoric are inspiring the fringe elements of their party to commit increasing dangerous acts. It is not in the interest of our democracy for a mainstream party to appeal to the most violent and racist elements of our society to win elections.
I would suggest that your inability to provide examples to back up your claims is because they do not exist and that your insistence that they do exist is a result of your being misinformed by a media outlet that also panders to the most violent and racist elements in our society.
By “racism” I assume you’re talking about illegal immigration.
Yeah, those dirty righties are something else all right, with their insistance on abiding the law and all.
Look, if you types who think the U.S. should be the only significant country in the world (and maybe the only country) that allows unfettered immigration, then you should just come out and advocate for that. But knock it off with the claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are racists. It’s a lie, pure and simple.
Canada won’t allow U.S. citizens (or our own illegal immigrants, for that matter) flow unfettered into their country. So where’s the racism there? France won’t allow people to flow unfettered into their country either. Nor will the U.K., Germany, Belguim and even Sweden and The Netherlands. Nor will any other country that I can think of, nobody makes a peep about it.
So why is it wrong when the U.S. does it?
And then you might want to consider why it is that lefties get accused of hating America?
No. It’s partially because I feel the same way Xtisme does. I don’t feel like playing that game. I don’t feel like arguing over what voices are equal to what other voices. Go see the main thread about this tragedy. It’s a big ole pissing contest to see who is equal to who with regards to celebrity, and I’d rather not beat my head against that particular wall.
The other part is that I truly don’t give a fuck what someone thinks the stature of the person making the comment is. I’m sick of the whole damn thing. Whether it’s an AM radio jackass trying to sell his next rally, a former vice presidential candidate who made the big step up to reality television star, or some moron on a message board who is too damned…let’s just say enthusiastic to put a moments thought into what he’s saying. It’s all crap to me.
But then, I’m not the one arguing the value of it.
If your not arguing about it, why do you keep posting? So your saying a guy yelling on a street corner is the same as a candidate talking to a rally of thousands? That’s nuts.
To me, the talk is the important thing. If the talk is what we’re all objecting to, then it’s worth objecting to all of it. Arguing on the scale of the thing is just weaseling out of responsibllity. Der Trihs doesn’t have the same reach as Glenn Beck, but does Glenn Beck have the same clout as Sarah Palin? Does Sarah Palin have the same clout as the next person up the chain. She’s not, after all, an elected official anymore. I’ve seen reports that this particular shooter may have gotten inspiration from some farther right than Glenn Beck blog. If that’s the case, then all it really takes is a blog to tip the scales. One need not even reach the lofty heights of twitter fame.
The phrase you are looking for is “I am full of shit”. I think that fits pretty good.
Your part of the problem and for some reason you find virtue in your apathy and ingnorance.
Quite right. I want everyone to stop talking like a great angry asshole, and you feel the only people who need to watch what they say are the right as long as they’ve hit certain sales goals. And I’m part of the problem. Good call.
Two more things:
Do you think that people need to talk like that at all in political discourse? Do you think that kind of talk has any value?
If you’re (not your) going to comment about ignorance (not ingnorance), be sure you double check your (not you’re) spelling.
Also, you seemed to dodge the main point of my post. It appears that this guy got some of his ideas from a fringe right blog that I’ve honestly never heard of and not any of the top sellers that we’ve all been raging about, myself included. If that is the case, do you still believe that it is the responsibility of only the famous to watch what they say?
Obama campaigned on these changes. He said he’d reform health, he got through the best he could in the situation. He is doing what he said he’d do. Don’t like it then try to get him out in your next election.
Here in Ireland we have a government with an approval rating of just over 10%. We are stuck with thim till the government falls by legitimate polictical means or their term runs out. Talk of any other means of removal are unthinkable.
When your guys win elections they push through their shit with nary a regard for the other side. Why can you not accept than you lost the presidental election and that has consequences.
Of course I would like everyone on the planete to be nice.
You caught me, I make spelling mistakes at 6.30 in the morning, pre-coffee.
Now I have a couple of questions for you:
Do you find it troubling that violent demagogues on the right seem to be finding an audience?
Do you admit that there do not seem to be equivalent demagogues who are able to attract an audience on the left? If you do not admit this, can you provide examples?
I never said that the shooter in Arizona got his ideas from Palin, Beck or the others. I said that the right has mainstreamed violence and racism in an attempt to pander to a significant portion of its base. I also claim that there is not the equivalent on the left. I ask you to prove me wrong, but you can’t.
I find it odd that you think that it is possible for the Democratic party to get everyone on the planet that agrees with it on some points to behave. What the party can do is not embrace the nuts who do emerge, denounce them when they do say something crazy, and most importantly: don’t give them a slot as the party’s VP candidate in a national election.
Which is why I corrected as opposed to mocking. I personally go through my posts to make sure I haven’t done the same, mainly due to my lack of typing ability.
Yes, but I find it troubling that violent demagogues find an audience at all.
Oh, I’ll admit that readily. The voices on the right have created quite an little echo chamber for themselves with talk of liberal and lamestream media. True believers find they can only listen to the voices that give the same message over and over again which can even turn reasonable people into less than reasonable. I’d use the example of the vandalism and threats over the health care vote. Not all of those people were crazy. Some were perfectly normal, but they still did it. We’re just now finding out what those words can do to a crazy person.
That said, my point has been and will continue to be that this kind of talk has no benefit and really only the potential for harm. Thusly, why do it? Side doesn’t matter. Scale doesn’t matter.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
How refreshing. Rather than claiming this latest Lone Gunman was just a nutcase with no relationship to the frothings of your party leaders, you see this as the first shot* in the new revolution.
Oh, and those “racism” claims you pin to opposing the “illegals”? The main reason we’re using the R word is that the Right’s long-standing anger didn’t start “bubbling to the surface” until we elected a black man President. (Well, light brown–but Definitely Not White.)
Pardon me, but he said nothing about the stimulous package; he said nothing about virtually nationalizing the automobile and banking industries; and rather than coming up with a health care option for the fifteen or twenty percent of the population with no insurance, which is what people favored during his campaign, he signs a bill forcing everyone into an unpopular plan that Nancy Pelosi felt compelled to exhort her membership to defy its constituencies over.
Still, my comments, as I thought I explained in the post you’re responding to, pertains to the changes that liberalism has wrought in this country over the last forty or fifty years - not just since Obama’s election. And not just by the elected government. The federal judiciary has played a large role, as has the news and entertainment media and Hollywood. It’s the overall effect of liberal ideology upon the country over that period of time that I’m talking about.
Given that I said nothing nothing of the sort, I see no reason to defend having said it.
I always take it as a sign that I’m scoring points when my opponents can’t argue against what I actually said but are instead reduced to claiming I said ridiculous things I never said in order to try to combat them.
I see. So your take on things is that because we have a black/light brown president, everybody is suddenly against letting brown people flood into the country in violation of immigration laws of the type that every country in the world has.
Interesting, but full of crap as ususal.
Bush came in for a lot of disapproval from his conservative base for not doing anything about illegal immigration either. But when Bush was in office there was at least the hope that the next administration would do something about it. But that hasn’t been the case, and people are beginning to fear now that no one is ever going to do anything about it.
And then there’s the fact that border violence is getting worse and some of the violence going on in Mexico is starting to spill into the U.S., with some U.S. law enforcement officers being killed as well.
And then there’s the fact that Arizona, a state in greater danger from cartel crime than most of the state in the union, has been sued by the Obama administration for trying to take steps to halt illegal immigration into its state - illegal immigration that the Obama administration itself should be trying to halt.
And besides, the part of my post which you quoted spoke to the direction this country has been headed for the last forty years, not just the last two. But developments under the Obama administration (and even moreso, under the 111th Congress), has largely been the straw that broke the camel’s back with the kind of people who’ve become Tea Partiers and other conservatives who are getting fed up with the way this country is and has been headed for a very long time.
But they did squat about it until we elected a non-White president.