Politics and Anger

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   "Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate..in Nevada, has taken heat for a number of extreme affiliations and policy positions. One of the more outlandish was a statement she made.. in which she floated the idea that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with "Second Amendment remedies."
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 … 14003.html
   
   Before conservatives go in full-defense mode or any progressives go in full-attack mode. It's pretty damn obvious the Arizona shooter is insane. Fruit loops. I am not suggesting he's the poster boy for the tea party.
   
   But I think the author at huffpo has a point. Sharon Angle was not a fringe candidate. She was running against Harry Reid and she had endorsements at the highest level of the Tea Party, including Sarah. The tea party has used more than crosshairs on a map in their imagery. Conservative bloggers on HP have advocated or warned of 'second amendment' answers.
   
   I don't dismiss conservative threats as talk. A Ron Paul staffer and his buddies assaulted a small woman from moveon.org who was trying to meet Ron Paul. Paul fired the guy who stomped on the woman's head. I am not suggesting Paul wanted this - but tea party candidates have attracted belligerent thugs and the candidates seem happy with them until something gets caught on camera.
   
   There is nothing I would do to undermine free speech rights or second amendment rights. NOTHING. But guns at political events and violent rhetoric and images have to stop. The only way that can happen without new laws & government police intervention (which I oppose) is if conservatives themselves intervene.
   
   John Bohner made a nice statement yesterday. It included everything I would have wanted him to say. Now I'm looking for what he will do - along with Michael Steel and Sarah Palin. I don't just want them to exclude posters with pictures of a noose or gun at events. I want them to identify and ban the person who brings those items from future events. 
   
   Either conservatives from Fox all the way to Congress will ban and exclude proponents of violence or the rhetoric amounts to 'Don't shoot democrats' (wink, nudge) 'more than once.'

   replyreport
   1. 68

      bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This language, while it may or may not have been used by the shooter to incite himself, is irresponsible. Technically, it is a metaphor, making it legal and it should be legal. But in the political arena it is irresponsible, very irresponsible.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Doug it seems to me that with post like this one you perpetuate the flames of hatred that you at the same time are damning.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Tony -  you saw me call on LMC to apologize.
         
         There's something phony about denouncing this individual shooting while courting contributions and votes from individuals and groups who advocate 'watering the tree of liberty with blood'. It's real blood on the streets of Tuscon. 
         
         What I want (and won't get) is for conservatives, GOP and Tea Party to reject anyone who would correct the outcome of an election with their 'second amendment remedies'.
         
         For the moment, there's posturing to be bipartisan in the tragedy.  But when it comes to votes and contributions, people who advocate ' second amendment remedies' like  happened in Tuscon are going to be at the top of the list for conservative candidates in 2012.

         replyreport
   3. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'd like to point out that many of the shooter's friends in high school said that he was quite left-wing and liberal.
      
      ""What is not clear is what role politics — and, in particular, the red-hot rhetoric of the mid-term elections — played in the shooting. Descriptions one of Loughner's high school classmates posted on Twitter only added to the mystery. "He had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical," @caitieparker tweeted. "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy." And, most ominously, "He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was 'stupid & unintelligent.'""
      
      http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/g … ies-probed
      
      And then apparently he went over to some "right-wing extremist groups", or so the media calls them...
      
      So basically, he was a nut job who went 10 tokes over the line. As much as this is a clear case of a nut-job with a gun, everyone wants to turn this into a political battle.
      
      The guy was nutso. That's it.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think you're right, Evan. Hubby is home today and is watching FOX (as usual), and they just interviewed one of the guy's college professors. The prof, along with a few classmates, were afraid of the nut. One woman was worried even back then that he might show up to class one day with a gun.

         replyreport
      2. 73

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "The guy was nutso. That's it."
         Absolutely. No political figure or political group bears any culpability for this guy's actions.
         
         But at the same time, as I've said before, this is what a "2nd Amendment solution" looks like in real life. This is what people are calling for when they carry signs that say "It's time to water the tree."
         
         This guy wasn't acting on their behalf. But he did what they were advocating.
         
         Maybe we should be careful what we wish for.

         replyreport
   4. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      All good points. Political rhetoric does not occur in a vaccum. I think it's pretty clear that we have to look at this historically. It's been "ramping" up since the Presidential campaign. The Justice Dept's stance on the Black Panther case is a good example of NOT stepping in to influence the dialouge in the media.

      replyreport
2. 60

   katiem2posted 13 years ago

   I really feel, that although bad things happen and it is a tragic thing, we should focus on bringing more positive actions to the forefront of media and reporting.
   
   We sure could use good news and events to give people something to imulate!
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I suggested something concrete - a tough standard that the individuals who exercise free speech by advocating violence be banned and prohibited by the GOP and Tea Party. And not just the offensive sign that no candidate wants to see on TV associated with his/her campaign but the idiot under the sign.  But there is a double standard. Conservative candidates (mostly) don't want to be associated with violence or threats of violence, but they court the votes of nuts who advocate political change through the barrel of a gun.
      
      Nobody wants to engage me on this challenge, and trying to have it both ways, courting the votes of groups whose actions you pretend to denounce is tacit approval.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Buffoonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         http://hubpages.com/hub/free-speech-and-accountability

         replyreport
      2. 71

         N.E. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Doug, you are correct.
         
         It was the scariest thing to hear yesterday afternoon.  I was trying to spend a day looking at The Little Rascals on DVD.  I decide to check my email, and I see the news about the Congresswoman other several others wounded and killed.
         
         It has to stop.
         
         Again, you are correct.

         replyreport
3. 93

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Doug, that wasn't Ron Paul - it was RAND Paul. Two different folks.
   
   I am seriously concerned about an armed revolution in this country - maybe not widescale, but more and more incidents of what happened yesterday. It really scares and saddens me. I love America, and yes, I'm one of those God fearin' gun-totin' moderate-conservatives. But I hate all the vitriol. My husband watches Beck, and I hate for him to do so. Why? Because it always makes him so angry. If he can get so worked up - and he's stable - what must the show do to unstable viewers? I believe in free speech, but the haters need to think before they speak.
   
   I'm not blaming all the hate on the right. Plenty comes from the left, too. But this is AMERICA! We should solve our differences with respectful debate and at the voting booth, and not with anger and violence.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I stand corrected and apologize.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Doug - not only was it Rand Paul (which you've accepted and apologized for)...
         
         ... But both of the Pauls have repeatedly called for non-violent change in government.
         
         Don't bring them into this. They advocate non-violence.
         
         Ron:
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAMDu-bUHyA
         http://www.dailypaul.com/node/74237
         http://www.dailypaul.com/node/150838
         Just about every book by Ron Paul confirms this statement as well.
         
         Rand (who probably didn't think it was necessary to advocate for non-violence until the incident in question):
         http://www.americantowns.com/ky/lexingt … nt-2328756
         http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20 … rand-paul/
         
         Don't smear the Pauls for some jerk-nugget's actions.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You and republicans are determined NOT to get the message.
            
            No one is saying that Rand Paul intended a woman from moveon.org to get beaten. Rand Paul did select thugs for his campaign.  NO one is saying Sarah Palin intended for Congresswoman Giffords to get shot.
            
            Words have meaning and words have POWER. If you use rhetoric like 'anarchy' and 'target' and 'reload' and 'second amendment remedies' and if you use images like crosshairs, you invite and attract and encourage violence. The Tea Party is built on those icons of violence.

            replyreport
   2. 82

      Aya Katzposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      An armed revolution is not the same as assassination. Even those who advocate revolution do not advocate murder.

      replyreport
4. 62

   Mishaposted 13 years ago

   Anger comes from fear. Fear comes from the lack of understanding....

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And understanding comes from dialogue.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Dialogue is just a small part of it, though it certainly helps

         replyreport
5. 60

   Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago

   Its hard to take liberals serious after 8 years of this.
   
   http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's nice but it's disconnected with reality.
      
      The truth is that police at the request of the Secret Service put protesters behind chain link fences out of sight of the press at Bush events and never charged them with any crime. This happened at events in  Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas and Washington, among other places.  . That this was a violation of the first amendment didn't bother the wingnut in chief.
      
      The improvised gulags were called 'free speech zones'. Oh, the irony.
      
      What I find hard to take seriously is a web site called zombietime that clams Bush was the victim of death threats - but I know what the real policy was about Bush protesters at Bush events.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Once again you cannot be taken seriously.
         
         Every bad thing that happens is the fault of conservatives and every good thing is done by liberals.
         
         Your side will never retain power until you accept your responsibility.

         replyreport
      2. 93

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Doug, I'm sure Bush received death threats. Every president probably has, and A LOT of people hated W. Remember all the Hitler stuff?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There are plenty of Americans who would throw more than shoes. My point was that Bush did not only use the Secret Service for security, which is appropriate, but to suppress dissent. Most Americans would be astounded at the violations. So when Jimmy tries to paint W as a victim of nasty email, I have to object.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Here is a solution; Tea partiers and repubs on one side, dems and whoever on the other. Shake hands and go home.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Where should the moderates go? Or are there any left??

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The moderates would have to be over on the Left side of the aisle; the tea-partiers have gone so far to the right, they think the middle of the road is liberal, and liberals are communists.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL!!

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm writing for you, Rose, because you asked the $20,000 question. And nobody else is listening. IMO, the GOP came up with a strategy, maybe 5 years ago, to drive moderates out of the republican party. And they did. I used to have the numbers, but the ranks of independents grew while the ranks of the GOP shrunk. (No, they didn't join the democrats.)
                     
                     The shift was marked along ideological lines. The remaining GOP can ensure in most districts that ONLY an ultra-conservative can win in the primary election. Remember, in the primaries in most states, independents cant vote and don't select the candidate.To some degree, the GOP miscalculated, because they are getting candidates who are not loyal to the party machine.  Many of the nuts who won in the GOP primary self-destructed in the general election because the moderates, with no love for democrats, could not stomach the Teabagger kook. (Exhibit  - Angle and O'donell)
                     
                     Moderates in the independent ranks are the key now. Fox is crucial to keeping them misinformed and angry at all things liberal. They are not trying to get moderates to vote FOR the extreme candidates that the GOP is guaranteed to put up. They are pitching the moderates to just vote AGAINST the democrat.
                     
                     The strategy might work. The key is to keep the hate and anger up, and that's the thing liberals are objecting to. The lies and misinformation from Fox is unending. Moderates are the critical factor.  If they disconnect from the anger and start considering issues objectively, the slate of kooks put up by the GOP will fail.
                     
                     Healthy conservatism, maybe of a different party name will replace what the GOP has become. William F. Buckley style of conservatism - thoughtful, articulate and more concerned with solving problems that protecting the rich. Do you know some of the most progressive legislation of our lifetime was signed by Richard Nixon?
                     
                     The Limbaugh-Beck conservatism is obscene. Compromise is not a dirty word or shouldn't be. When we get through this period of history, the nuts will be marginalized and MODERATES, some leaning liberal, some leaning conservative will pass the deciding votes on important legislation.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Doug, I have to agree with much of what you've said. The GOP is changing, but I believe the Democratic party is, too. Both seem to be polarizing. Strangely, the very things I liked about McCain are the things that most hard conservatives didn't like. That's how we ended up with Palin.
                        
                        As for Nixon, did you know he had about the highest IQ of any president ever? Reagan supposedly had one of the lowest.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I am curious.  When you say the both parties are polarizing, which politicians are you thinking of, specifically, from both sides?  I'm asking because you have described yourself as pretty moderate, so I'm interested in your perspective on that.

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              PP, remember that this is my PERSONAL opinion. My choices might be based on their views, or on the way they present themselves:
                              
                              Polarizing Dems:
                              
                              Cynthia McKinney
                              Al Franken
                              Nancy Pelosi
                              Dianne Feinstein
                              Alan Grayson
                              Sherrod Brown
                              Barney Frank
                              
                              Polarizing Repubs:
                              
                              SARAH PALIN
                              Jim DeMint
                              Joe Wilson
                              Mitch McConnell
                              Sharron Angle
                              Christine O'Donnell
                              most (not all) of the Tea Party
                              
                              
                              Dems I like:
                              
                              Hillary Clinton
                              Jim Marshall
                              Ed Rendell
                              James Carville
                              Evan Bayh
                              
                              Repubs I like:
                              
                              John McCain
                              Lindsey Graham
                              Mike Huckabee
                              John Boehner
                              Bobby Jindal
                              
                              There, I've spilled my guts. lol. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but please respect my opinion.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 I didn't ask because I wanted to debate your choices.  I was just curious.  Thank you! 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    PP, that comment wasn't so much directed at you as it was for others who might stumble upon our conversation. lol

                                    replyreport
6. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   If we weren't saddled with labels and forced to choose sides ("Us" vs. "Them") I bet you'd find a LOT of people really are moderates....

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So true, MM. It's funny - my best friend is a liberal Democrat and we always find a bunch of stuff that we agree on. Her aunt, another liberal Dem, was visiting over Christmas, and the discussion got around to politics. When she found out I was a Republican, she started asking me questions. As I answered, she laughed and said, "Honey, you're a moderate Democrat and just don't know it!"
      
      I suppose I'm a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal. lol

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The term moderate is nonsense without boundaries to back them up.
      
      I'm a moderate when it comes to the debate between "Minarchy and Anarchy", but I'm an extremist when it comes to the debate between "Dictatorship and Anarchy"...
      
      .. and if we talk about economics... boy howdy im' a radical "socialism vs. laissez-faire capitalism".
      
      But if we define the terms as "chicago school vs. austrian school" I'm a bit more of a moderate.
      
      Once again, the term "moderate" means nothing without boundaries.

      replyreport