His view is a valid contribution to the discussion. It’s absurd to act like there’s not a problem with the level of discourse in this country, and when people start dying is the perfect time to start talking about it.
I don’t know if it’s up at CNN.com yet or not, but did anybody see the interview of Bill Badger on CNN? He’s a retired army colonel, and the guy who grabbed the shooter whilst bleeding from a serious head wound. Riveting.
And the lady who grabbed the clip? She’s apparently far too modest. The colonel said the shooter was walking right toward her re-loading when she grabbed it.
It’s a really amazing account of the whole mess.
I wonder if anyone has signed a book or movie deal yet.
Tina Fey could revive her role as Sarah Palin.
Looks like the shooter was a liberal.
He was a “left wing pot head” according to people who knew him.
But I’m sure this won’t change the mind of any of the liberal nut jobs who want to blame conservatives.
Nah. You can cherry pick bits of his past to paint his as either liberal or conservative. The guy was all over the map.
Nobody’s buying that. For one, that was one person, who knew him four years ago. For another, he advocates a whole range of issues, including many which are inconsistent with the liberal left.
Transfixed by the news. Watching CNN. Turning to World News on ABC. Then back to CNN.
The retired army colonel said in the CNN interview that at first he thought it was firecrackers. Now, considering that Badger in fact did tackled the shooter to the ground, why would Badger think firecrackers? I’m mean, it’s outside, ok, and he did react quick. I’m just impressed that he thought as most everyone else would, but then, acted in a way most everyone else probably wouldn’t be trained to act.
That’s probably close to the truth. Crazy people are able to see linkages and affinities among issues/stances that most of the rest of us would view as very divergent. Those linkages are what usually gets them into trouble. In his mind, it was perfectly logical that the solution to the problems (he perceived) facing America was to shoot up an obscure congresswoman’s town meeting. He’s probably shocked that the nation hasn’t risen up in rebelliion or repealed the Sixteenth Amendment or whatever goal he had in mind.
To the extent he was talking about the gold standard, that ain’t anything dear to leftists, but rather to right-wingers (and, pace Ron Paul, whom I like, it does seem to bring out the loonies).
The “blame” such as it is being placed, is being placed at those who have been using over the top rhetoric. Over the top rhetoric gets used usually by those trying to whip up populist movements. The populist movement of the moment happens to be on the Right but the issue is not that the views are Conservative or Liberal, Gold Standard or Socialist, Palin hypothetically inspiring a current wacko or Emma Goldman having inspired one in the past; the issue is the rhetoric that is being used and its potential to tip the nuts over the edge from being privately delusional to acting on their delusions.
Did this particular wacko get tipped over by any particular populist rhetoric? I have my belief and others have theirs and none of us really know. But whether or not this accident would have been prevented by having one, it is time to put up a metophoric stop sign on the over the top rhetoric by those with big stages.
I cannot believe that people are still trying to label this psycho’s ideology. Maybe they don’t watch the news and aren’t aware of how amorphous his views actually are. I mean, you can actually view his videos for yourself. There’s really no excuse.
So, how about JD Hayworth’s opponent running an ad that put him in a crosshairs? Acceptable imagery, or not?
“His paranoid Internet ravings about government mind control place him well beyond usual ideological categories.”
This is it exactly. History and literature are filled with examples of populists and propagandists inciting people -both crowds and individuals- to violence. Why are so many here denying the power of rhetoric in society today, when it’s become easier than ever before for a demagogue to find a soapbox and when the press is so eager to entertain and provoke, and so seldom inclined to critique and inform?
I think this is reasonable discussion: where does the line get crossed? In that ad I don’t think it was, as the crosshairs was placed briefly, not in context of “he’s in our sights, let’s take him down”, but to illustrate the factoid that the FBI had him in their sights under investigation. Context does matter.
This is really all there is to say. It may be impossible to even know with certainty what motivates any one person, but if your political movement puts you in a position where people even have a reason to question your relationship to the actions of a complete wacko and you have to go on the defensive, you’re going to be seen as somewhat guilty by association. Maybe it was just tasteless and hyperbole, but if you lay down with dogs and get fleas, I don’t think you get to blame the dog.
In American, the line gets crossed at the fighting word doctrine. Perhaps some want to argue the line should be moved, but for now that’s the answer to ‘where does the line get crossed’.
As for context, you are correct. Context does matter. In context, it is clear to any sane person that Palin’s map was about legally and peacefully voting people out of office. It may be in poor taste or over the top, but pretty much everyone has known all along that Beck, Palin, etc aren’t the mos tactful of people. showing taste or calm reasonable debate. However, context does matter. So far the only example cited that strikes me as going to far is the second amendment solutions line which, even in context, could be viewed as an open call for violence.
Kinda of a tangent, watching that attack ad I started to wonder why no one is complaining about the term ‘attack ad’. I mean it has the word attack right there…
Can you give us some examples of these historical figures and how they compare to the likes of Sarah Palin?
Oh, and what are talking about when you refer to “literature”? Are we now using fictional characters to prove our points?
godix, you are answering as a matter of law. I know of no one here who is stating that even Angle’s comment should be illegal speech. But there are many things that are legal that are still wrong.
It was clear to Giffords in March that having crosshairs around her name was something of concern. It was clear to many of us who were commenting then and since that using gunsights and “reload” rhetoric was something that could tip a fanatic to action. You have a crowd that believes the other side is evil; a threat to their way of life and their core values; who equate Obama to Hitler and put up billboards to that effect, and who would definitely have killed Hitler if they had had the chance. I do believe that she, and those other of us who felt that, would be called sane by most, and we see that rhetoric as irresponsible, in this context.
John, I just had: Emma Goldman. Hell name a populist movement and odds are I can come up with examples out of it. Violence during the Viet Nam War protests inspired by populist leaders. During the Civil Rights movement inspired by a variety of Black leaders who were not preaching non-violence. Violence by Islamists today. By the KKK. Anti-Semitic violence inspired by Father Coughlin’s radio diatribes. And on and on. We are a species that can be prone to violence and once you start making your opposition a “them” that threatens your way of life, it is an easy push to get some of our less peace loving members and even more so our less stable and socialized members, to action.
No. I want a specific person, and I want a reasonable argument that the person’s “rhetoric” was on the same level as Sarah Palin’s. Folks like the leaders of the KKK advocated and called for specific, real acts of violence against large numbers of people. Comparing Palin to the KKK or to ObL is a non-starter.
That’s nice, what you want, but it is not very meaningful to the point being made. And no I was not comparing Palin to the KKK, I was mentioning the KKK as an example of those inspired by rhetoric to actually act. Is Palin’s rhetoric as vitriolic as Coughlin’s was? Maybe not, but then again Coughlin never actually said anything that rhetorically put a target on anyone. Emma Goldman was, at the time that Leon Czolgosz shot McKinley, espousing a revolution in morality and preaching free love. But then she had years earlier been suspected (but not charged) in planning an assassination attempt on Henry Clay Frick and had gone to jail for making rhetorical statements like “Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, take bread.” I do not believe that George Wallace ever literally called for violence against Blacks or against protestors (short of rhetorical statements like "If any demonstrator ever lays down in front of my car, it’ll be the last car he’ll ever lay down in front of. ") but clearly he was part of creating an environment that fostered such violence and that emboldened individuals to act. I don’t think Malcom X ever literally called for violent action, just said things like “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence.” and he inspired some violent acts. But no, I cannot, off the top of my head, find an exact parallel. Palin is no George Wallace, no Malcom X, and she certainly is no Emma Goldman, who was also famous for saying "Before we can forgive one another, we have to understand one another. " and “The most violent element in society is ignorance.” and “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” And if it wasn’t for the context of Angle’s comments, and billboards like this and the other crap that has been mentioned multiple times in these threads and elsewhere, her gunsight graphic and “reload” comment would be as ignorable as she otherwise is.
But she has a big megaphone and in this context that rhetoric has been irresponsible.