quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: It did happen.

What, 2 years ago? Apologized for? But you just won't drop it, will you?

quote And I did wait until page 8 just in case you might realize your hypocrisy on the topic and sit it out.

Geez, I am just SO glad you're here to be not only our conscience, but the personal standard bearer of infallibility AND good taste. We're truly blessed to have so many fine examples of your impeccable behavior. Now, someone needs to convince you that hypocrisy isn't a virtue.

quote I'm not suggesting that you actually would endorse a homicide or an attempt, but it is easy to see how violent rhetoric is somehow acceptable and seen as free of consequence. However, some people pick up on that rhetoric and take it seriously. It doesn't have to come from Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh. It is everywhere.

This country used to execute traitors. One could make the case that her behavior bordered on treason. That's the context in which is was said, not that some random guy with a gun should shoot her. But I don't expect you to either acknowledge or really understand that distinction. But go ahead and keep beating that dead horse. You seem to get so much pleasure from it. What was it you used to say? whap whap whap?

Why did you "apologize" if there wasn't anything wrong with saying that? And what difference does it make when it was said? You don't need to rationalize what you said, I understand that you were heated and talking from the moment without contemplating the potential consequences, but what if someone did shoot "that ***** "? No one could accuse you of being legally responsible, but the moral responsibility would be tough to handle.

quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: Why did you "apologize" if there wasn't anything wrong with saying that?

I didn't say there wasn't anything wrong with it. I was drawing a distinction.

quote And what difference does it make when it was said? You don't need to rationalize what you said, I understand that you were heated and talking from the moment without contemplating the potential consequences,

Oh yeah, i was pissed. The goddamn speaker of the house, being a liar and a moron? It was unreal. You'd think this country was a banana republic.

quote but what if someone did shoot "that ***** "? No one could accuse you of being legally responsible, but the moral responsibility would be tough to handle.

If someone did, it wouldn't be my fault. I really don't get this mentality that some nutjob kills someone, and it MUST be someone else's fault. No, it's the goddamn nutjob's fault. What the f*** has happened to this society that no one is to blame, it's always someone else?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Outspoken Tucson sheriff faces recall bid

As Eminem said...
"Whatever happened to catching a good old-fashioned passionate ass-whooping and
getting your shoes, coat, and your hat tooken?"


How's that for rhetoric ?

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Glenn ... has NEVER advocated shooting people or violence in any way. If you can prove otherwise, present your evidence.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: (Glenn Beck video from 2010) (Glenn Beck quote from 2005) I've got more if you want?

Hmmm ...

1) fierobear issues an explicit and very narrow challenge.

2) ryan.hess calls his bluff and responds with not one, but two specific citations which appear to disprove fierobear's assertions conclusively.

3) fierobear reasonably questions the context of ryan's citations, but also reacts, predictably and characteristically, with aggression, deflection (i.e. by trying to change the question at issue), blustering, insults, ad hominem rants, and bullying behavior.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If someone did [shoot Nancy Pelosi], it wouldn't be my fault. I really don't get this mentality that some nutjob kills someone, and it MUST be someone else's fault. No, it's the goddamn nutjob's fault. What the f*** has happened to this society that no one is to blame, it's always someone else?

Under certain limited circumstances, incitement, derived from English common law, has always been a crime in the U.S., although it's usually difficult to prosecute here. Look it up.

I find it interesting that people who are so quick to claim that disaffected young Muslim men are highly suceptible to incitement by their authority figures are equally quick to assert that disaffected young American men, even when mentally ill, could not possibly be similarly affected.

That said, it's a legitimate topic for discussion whether or not our poliitical discourse should be limited by how a mentally ill person might be incited by what most healthy people would recognize as violent metaphor.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I find it interesting that people who are so quick to claim that disaffected young Muslim men are highly suceptible to incitement by their authority figures are equally quick to assert that disaffected young American men, even when mentally ill, could not possibly be similarly affected.

Oh they can be influenced all the way to blowing themselves up, not an issue.
But do you or anyone have one bit of proof that this shooter ever listened to any of it, or was it just the voices in his head?
Mean while the left keeps beating the drum.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Oh they can be influenced all the way to blowing themselves up, not an issue. But do you or anyone have one bit of proof that this shooter ever listened to any of it, or was it just the voices in his head? Mean while the left keeps beating the drum.

What drum is it they keep beating? That this individual had links to and was affected by the rhetoric or that this event could act as a warning sign that the vitriol and rhetoric "could" lead some people to carry out such acts? Further to that who is doing the "beating of the drums" exactly?

I thought most reliable news organizations were looking at it as a warning of what could happen not saying that there was a clear case of a connection to it affecting this particular individual. Now if you are asserting that there are some on the left that are suggesting that there is a clear link I'm sure there are just as there are some on the right(even on this site) who have tried to link him to liberal ideals. I thought the Presidents speech covered the topic as he even called for a calming of the extreme views and rhetoric from both sides. I would bet that many top Republicans would say (have said) the same thing, it's usually the fringe and extremists that can't see past such "hate" for the other side.

The fear that he may be tagged as being a member of a certain party seems like the main issue by some while no matter who or what he affiliated himself with is unlikely the cause of his shooting spree. Having said that if a result of the self-examination of both sides own "attacking however you can" style is that they both tone down the hate and fear they like to spew it might be something that most people can more easily accept.

quote Originally posted by newf: You could also ask why Palin took down the Crosshairs map from her website.

I could... but Sarah Palin doesn't post here. Any opinion about her motivations would be based on speculation. Meanwhile we have a textbook case of violent rhetoric in the advocacy of assasinating a member of Congress. Whether or not it was serious is not the case, although it appears fierobear still thinks there is some legal precedent for calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi. But when people start thinking that kind of speech is harmless, it doesn't take a sick mind too far to stretch that the actions described are acceptable.

[This message has been edited by WhiteDevil88 (edited 01-23-2011).]

quote I find it interesting that people who are so quick to claim that disaffected young Muslim men are highly suceptible to incitement by their authority figures are equally quick to assert that disaffected young American men, even when mentally ill, could not possibly be similarly affected. That said, it's a legitimate topic for discussion whether or not our poliitical discourse should be limited by how a mentally ill person might be incited by what most healthy people would recognize as violent metaphor.

From all I have seen and read, it seems the shooter was a Liberal. Did they incite him to shoot one of their own? I don't think he would have been paying attention to any Conservative news, blogs, articles, stories, etc. if that is the case. The bottom line is he made the choice himself to commit the act.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: What drum is it they keep beating? That this individual had links to and was affected by the rhetoric or that this event could act as a warning sign that the vitriol and rhetoric "could" lead some people to carry out such acts? Further to that who is doing the "beating of the drums" exactly? I thought most reliable news organizations were looking at it as a warning of what could happen not saying that there was a clear case of a connection to it affecting this particular individual. Now if you are asserting that there are some on the left that are suggesting that there is a clear link I'm sure there are just as there are some on the right(even on this site) who have tried to link him to liberal ideals. I thought the Presidents speech covered the topic as he even called for a calming of the extreme views and rhetoric from both sides. I would bet that many top Republicans would say (have said) the same thing, it's usually the fringe and extremists that can't see past such "hate" for the other side. The fear that he may be tagged as being a member of a certain party seems like the main issue by some while no matter who or what he affiliated himself with is unlikely the cause of his shooting spree. Having said that if a result of the self-examination of both sides own "attacking however you can" style is that they both tone down the hate and fear they like to spew it might be something that most people can more easily accept.

Do gou guys get American TV feeds and do you watch them?
Will help to know that in order to give you an explanation of who is beating what drum.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Do gou guys get American TV feeds and do you watch them? Will help to know that in order to give you an explanation of who is beating what drum.

Do we get them? Yes. Do I watch each one? No

But feel free to explain who is and what they are saying.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Isn't it interesting how, when you disagree with someone, what they say is "myopic" and "rhetoric"? My views aren't myopic. I've done my homework, and I believe what I believe, not because I want to, but because my belief is based on information. I read a LOT. You've seen me post many links here. For every link I post, I've probably read 2 or 3 various sources, and pick the one source that appears to be the most reliable. If I post an opinion article, it is normally one with links to news sources. I'm also in my mid 40s. I've seen a lot, experienced a lot, and know what works and what doesn't. Leftist policies don't work. They are failing all over Europe, and the leftists in this country want to bring those policies here. That is sheer madness. This is MY country, too, and I don't want it to fail. If that makes me pissed off sometimes, so be it.

In my own experience (we are very close in age), I have found that most people have a predetermined view when it comes to the topics of politics and religion. Most will argue to the bitter end to convince another that their views are correct. Very few people will admit they are wrong after the argument has ended.

I don't doubt that you read a lot, and I have seen the many links that you have posted on the forum. I have even read a number of them. You have posted some that I agree with, and others that I do not. As your own statement points out, you read 2 or 3 various sources, and then pick the one that appears the most reliable. I doubt that "reliability" is truly a measure of accuracy when you are researching a topic, and it is more the case that you have found an article that agrees with your own point of view. I hope you realize that by doing so, you are not stating fact, you are just rationalizing your own opinion? With that, you are doing nothing more than "cherry picking" articles to support your opinion, just as many others do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it factual.

Although someone with views a strong as your own may not see it, my political views are very centered between liberal and conservative policies. I have crossed the line many times, picking what I feel is best, more often than not, ignoring the party label. I will admit that I have made both good choices and bad. I have lived long enough, and studied enough history to know that policy from either side can be subject to failure. Most political failures could be better linked to improper execution, rather than the original implementation.

If there is one political statement that I think most anyone would agree with, it would be that "if you turn enough politicians loose on anything, they will eventually screw it up." I don't think this is malicious on their part, but more so due to human nature. People generally look out for themselves and those they are directly responsible for first. What's good for one is not always good for another. I find it hard to believe that rational people actually believe that a person gets into politics because they want to institute policy that will be the undoing of their country.

When I listen to the rhetoric from the leaders of either side, it is easy to understand why their followers would think that the other side will be the undoing of us all. To make matters worse, we have media whores from all sides, who have made a living off the back of this rhetoric, extending it further, adding their own vitriol to the mix. It is unfortunate that in this Reality T.V. World we live in, that people actually believe this garbage as gospel.

I will continue to view your opinion as myopic so long as you continue to support it with hyperbole. I would feel this way irregardless of your political views. If someone with extreme liberal views was using this thread as a backdrop for their political rant, I would be making these same statements to them. Just to be clear, it is not your opinion that I disagree with, it is the method that you are using to support it.

quote Originally posted by KidO: In my own experience (we are very close in age), I have found that most people have a predetermined view when it comes to the topics of politics and religion. Most will argue to the bitter end to convince another that their views are correct. Very few people will admit they are wrong after the argument has ended. I don't doubt that you read a lot, and I have seen the many links that you have posted on the forum. I have even read a number of them. You have posted some that I agree with, and others that I do not. As your own statement points out, you read 2 or 3 various sources, and then pick the one that appears the most reliable. I doubt that "reliability" is truly a measure of accuracy when you are researching a topic, and it is more the case that you have found an article that agrees with your own point of view. I hope you realize that by doing so, you are not stating fact, you are just rationalizing your own opinion? With that, you are doing nothing more than "cherry picking" articles to support your opinion, just as many others do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it factual. Although someone with views a strong as your own may not see it, my political views are very centered between liberal and conservative policies. I have crossed the line many times, picking what I feel is best, more often than not, ignoring the party label. I will admit that I have made both good choices and bad. I have lived long enough, and studied enough history to know that policy from either side can be subject to failure. Most political failures could be better linked to improper execution, rather than the original implementation. If there is one political statement that I think most anyone would agree with, it would be that "if you turn enough politicians loose on anything, they will eventually screw it up." I don't think this is malicious on their part, but more so due to human nature. People generally look out for themselves and those they are directly responsible for first. What's good for one is not always good for another. I find it hard to believe that rational people actually believe that a person gets into politics because they want to institute policy that will be the undoing of their country. When I listen to the rhetoric from the leaders of either side, it is easy to understand why their followers would think that the other side will be the undoing of us all. To make matters worse, we have media whores from all sides, who have made a living off the back of this rhetoric, extending it further, adding their own vitriol to the mix. It is unfortunate that in this Reality T.V. World we live in, that people actually believe this garbage as gospel. I will continue to view your opinion as myopic so long as you continue to support it with hyperbole. I would feel this way irregardless of your political views. If someone with extreme liberal views was using this thread as a backdrop for their political rant, I would be making these same statements to them. Just to be clear, it is not your opinion that I disagree with, it is the method that you are using to support it.

Great post.

quote Originally posted by Newf With the sources you have linked in the past I have no doubt that's exactly what you have seen and read.

OK, show me something that says otherwise.

I think the basic problem is trying to rationalize insane behavior. Other than morbid curiosity, who cares what set him off. In the event there was something definitive we could point to as cause, would anybody actually be in favor of limiting "anything" because it might set off an insane person? Not me.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Hmmm ... 1) fierobear issues an explicit and very narrow challenge. 2) ryan.hess calls his bluff and responds with not one, but two specific citations which appear to disprove fierobear's assertions conclusively.

Conclusive? Are you serious? A 22 second clip of Beck talking about the way that Nazis and the Soviets dealt with their own people, and you think this equals a call for violence against officials of the U.S. Government?

quote 3) fierobear reasonably questions the context of ryan's citations, but also reacts, predictably and characteristically, with aggression, deflection (i.e. by trying to change the question at issue), blustering, insults, ad hominem rants, and bullying behavior.

What aggression? Because I reacted with surprise that he actually was suggesting an obviously out-of-context statement was proof, as YOU are also doing? I was trying to have a serious debate with ryan about a serious subject, and he kept right on posting cherry-picked, out of context quotes, and most without links so there was no way to verify their truth or check context. *I* provided the context of the video.

Hey, you guys believe what you want. Knock yourselves out. Beck is trying to get people to shoot each other. OK, whatever you say.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So, despite having the transcript with the context, you're STILL saying that?

yes. Beck is an idiot.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: yes. Beck is an idiot.

How many times have you watched his show?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: How many times have you watched his show?

Enough to hear him use unwarranted fear and hysteria - and some pretty creative rhetoric - to make me roll my eyes and want to do something productive. I didn't keep a tally, and granted I tune into the shows that catch most of the flack. Not all his arguments are his own creation, but he has grafted onto some outlandish things. Cloward and Piven comes to mind - saying that the authors advocate the destruction of our society by overwhelming the system - its a good example of bias. The study paints a hypothetical situation, something rational people will examine and work to prevent - not accuse those of exploring the possibility of advocating. I understand Frances Piven, the surviving author of the Theory, receives threats regularly since Beck advanced this idea that they suggest that the poor attack our government. She's a 78 year old lady. Someone at Fox claims they come out against violence more often than any other news program. It's a bit like BP saying they have more experience cleaning up oil spills.

quote Originally posted by newf: I was more pointing out the fact that you mentioned he apologized and she took down the map on the website. Some might see that as an admission that they know what they did wasn't appropriate. I'm not one thinks that Palin's map was anything that should be looked at as a direct reason to the Tucson shooting, in bad taste maybe but there's lots of instances of that from politicians of every stripe.

So she took the idiotic "cross-hairs" down huh. I agree. The "cross-hairs" was in bad taste regardless if Mrs. Gifford or anyone else wasn't shot. That's something you'd expect to see on a militaristic poster when looking for Osama bin Laden or on a deck of cards (like the military did some time ago).

quote Originally posted by madcurl: So she took the idiotic "cross-hairs" down huh. I agree. The "cross-hairs" was in bad taste regardless if Mrs. Gifford or anyone else wasn't shot. That's something you'd expect to see on a militaristic poster when looking for Osama bin Laden or on a deck of cards (like the military did some time ago).

So did the liberal site remove theirs also.
Heard the ultra liberal Bob Beckel say the other day he was the one who first had the idea of the maps with targets on them.
OH BTW, has anyone even proven that this sicko ever saw Palin's map? Maybe he saw the one on the liberal site?
Speaking of sicko, now it is time to destroy every copy of the movie about Bush getting shot.
Then we need to setup a commission on eliminating every word that anyone finds offensive. Sure the list will grow to the point that we will only be allowed to grunt.
Then we will truly have free speach.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: OH BTW, has anyone even proven that this sicko ever saw Palin's map?

That's the real question. It has never been proven, but that doesn't keep some from repeating it. That's disingenuous, basically it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother certain people.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: That's the real question. It has never been proven, but that doesn't keep some from repeating it. That's disingenuous, basically it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother certain people.

Nah man, the real question is what Rep. Gabrielle Gifford has to say.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Nah man, the real question is what Rep. Gabrielle Gifford has to say.

About what?

I'd agree if we mean that we want to hear her *speak*, and know her mind is in good shape.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: That's the real question. It has never been proven, but that doesn't keep some from repeating it. That's disingenuous, basically it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother certain people.

I agree, I haven't seen a direct link between the shooter and Palin's map. Like I said it seems to have been in poor taste and I hope after the shooting people will use better judgement when in the public eye but most of what I have seen from the media has been the use of the crosshair map as an example of the kind of political discourse that may lead to a heightened sense of fear and hate that most would rather not have in society.

Who is it that keeps saying there is a definitive link?

quote Originally posted by newf: Who is it that keeps saying there is a definitive link?

Quite a few people in the media who are considered to be to the left. Olbermann, Krugman from the NYT, Matthews, and several others. Some even in the more conventional media have been saying it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There is nothing "hypothetical" about it. They started in the 60s, worked thought government, and implemented a lot of their strategy that way.

so your saying 'motor voter' is an anti-American plot? Their strategy? Like Kool-Aid much? And Guliani is an authority? jeez.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: so your saying 'motor voter' is an anti-American plot?[quote] I wouldn't put it that way. They wanted to stuff the voter rolls with people (or fake voters) who would vote for what they wanted. [quote] Their strategy? Like Kool-Aid much? [quote] Overwhelm the system with social demands, collapse it, and replace it with what they want - socialism. Replace capitalism with socialism. [and Guliani is an authority? jeez.

The former mayor of New York, from the time when this was happening, IN New York City? Uh...yeah...geez.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Quite a few people in the media who are considered to be to the left. Olbermann, Krugman from the NYT, Matthews, and several others. Some even in the more conventional media have been saying it.

Any links?

quote Originally posted by newf: Any links?

Of course. Lots. Maybe later, though. It's late.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The former mayor of New York, from the time when this was happening, IN New York City? Uh...yeah...geez.

Sure, no bias there.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: Sure, no bias there.

What source would you consider non-biased? What source would you accept?