Anyone here think the use of the term “blood libel” has been completely without real world consequences for those it’s been aimed at?
Wishful thinking aside, we’re not so much more rational than humans were before the age of enlightenment, that trash-talk has no effect on our actions.
The right-wing would’ve been much better off had Jared Loughner been an angry Tea Partier acting out because of something Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck said. That would’ve meant the solution would be simple: Make appeals to stop the angry rhetoric, and stop giving Glenn Beck and/or Sarah Palin a pulpit to preach from.
But the fact that it was a mentally-ill man who received no treatment, and the fact that this happened in a state that makes it pretty easy to buy and carry a gun in public, means that we can’t just have a discussion about rhetoric. We need to actually have a tough policy discussion, and from Bricker’s earlier apparent discomfort with that, it’s obvious that some of these policy discussions will mean changing things that conservatives won’t like.
Funny, huh? Probably right after this happened on Saturday, both sides were praying “Don’t let this be one of our guys.” But had it been just an angry conservative, it probably would’ve meant less long-term questioning of conservatives and their policies. And it would’ve actually allowed the GOP to swing back away from the fringe.
If you’d had the manners to do a search before trying to label me as a bush/iraq apologist you’d find a good few posts and threads where I berate people who ever thought Iraq was a credible threat to the US/UK/anyone other than Iran. Next time you’re trying to strawman someone, try fucking harder. Lemme see, I’ll even do the fucking search for you…why, here’s one I actually started just to have a dig at people who’d claimed there was evidence of the danger Iraq posed to the US.
But kudos at least for excelling in the art of truly fucking useless comparisons. It’s pretty easy for me to demonstrate the cause and effect for the invasion of Iraq. Bush ordered the army to invade, and invade they did. Do you see the slight fucking distinction here? You are trying to substantiate the idea that Palin’s use of aggressive language and imagery somehow encouraged a person with no known political leanings to assault a group of people by comparing it to a military campaign conducted by express order of the Commander in Chief. Short of your next post consisting of the ingredients listing for a can of soup, I’m not sure just how you could actually exceed upon the level of irrelevance you’ve demonstrated here.
Would you like to start a separate thread, Happy Lendervedder? I think everything you’ve said here is right on, but it’s not going to get that much traction on page 12 of this thread.
Yeah, it’ll have to wait til this afternoon though. If someone would like to start it up before then, I won’t be offended.
Actually, I’ll get something up right now…
Nice to see you applied some skeptcism to the hate campaign used to sell us on the Iraq war Gary. Are you willing to admit that a whole bunch of people other than yourself fell for that crap, and as a consequence thousands were killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars were squandered?
If you don’t call the push to war a right wing hate campaign, what euphemism do you employ to describe it?
OOPS! I may have inadvertently beat you to the punch. I hadn’t seen this part of the conversation here yet, and just posted this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13349892#post13349892
Here’smy link too. Shayna, maybe they can combine our threads or something? I haven’t read yours, but maybe they’re different enough…
I would discuss it, but I really don’t have a damn clue what to do about it. How do we KNOW who the maniacs are, until they do something? And if we do know, how do we prove it and MAKE them get treated, before something happens? I have no idea.
I see yours now, too. I think they’re different primarily in – if you’ll allow me to use the term – tone.
Contractors here, gotta run!
Any society will have citizens that are crazy and dangerous. Reagan defunded mental hospitals in the 70s . Mental hospitals across the country were shuttered. The patients were booted out and many wandered the streets. Families who were not qualified to handle these people were suddenly in charge.
Would this kid have been hospitalized before? I don’t know but his parents were unable to handle him. The schools had no way to help him. They just kicked him out, further alienating him.
A lot of them wind up in jail after committing terrible acts. That is not treatment.
Since we can not enter Jered’s head, we can not say for sure that the right wing ,over the top, aggressive rhetoric spurred him on. But I would not be surprised to find them a factor.
Well, your thread seems to be generating more of a discussion on the topic, so if Marley wants to close mine, that’s fine with me.
Depending on what side of the issue you were, it was either “mainstreaming” or “dumping”. Looking at the overall results, I side with the ones who called it dumping.
As to the title of the thread, according to the Arizona Tea Party, it has been determined that the fault for this shooting lies entirely with the VICTIMS.
Presumably you mean the country of California. 
Originally ,yes. But it spread across the country . The Repubs don’t want to spend money on those who were poorly born. Being sick, poor or crazy makes you a liability. Gotta get rid of those kinds of people.
Well not that far. But don’t spend any money on them, and pretend they don’t exist. Or that it’s all their fault.
Shayna, please bear the Pit language restrictions in mind when posting here.
No warning issued.
Oh yeah, now I remember why I left this place. Moronic rules that make no fucking sense (assuming I can say that). :rolleyes: