Violent rhetoric

[Zeb_Carter]

You sure do present an eloquent case for your point of view there, ol' pal.

Oh, you mean that both sides do it? Sure, I don't know how many times I've been called names by others on this board. How about you? Do you know? Or if they are a friend of yours do you just ignore what they say to people who aren't?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, you mean that both sides do it? Sure, I don't know how many times I've been called names by others on this board. How about you? Do you know? Or if they are a friend of yours do you just ignore what they say to people who aren't?

Who called you what, now?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I knew you wouldn't see the connection between the volatile rhetoric and the violence. You have no qualms whatsoever to only see what is convenient for you.

And you are wrong again. You should read things more carefully or get you braille machine fixed.

But as stated by Dr. M his post was about GUNS used in a violent way.

Oh and doc two names come to mind...Lynette Alice "Squeaky" Fromme and John Hinckley Jr, both took shots at Republican Presidents if I'm not mistaken.

Both are again outside your 30 year window, but fuck it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Who called you what, now?

LOL...you've got to be kidding or you just ignore the the slights and disparagements.

 

[Stella_Omega]

LOL...you've got to be kidding or you just ignore the the slights and disparagements.

Point me to some posts in which people called you names.

 

[sr71plt]

And you are wrong again. You should read things more carefully or get you braille machine fixed.

But as stated by Dr. M his post was about GUNS used in a violent way.

Oh and doc two names come to mind...Lynette Alice "Squeaky" Fromme and John Hinckley Jr, both took shots at Republican Presidents if I'm not mistaken.

Both are again outside your 30 year window, but fuck it.

I don't mind being wrong in your perspective. That somehow seems so right to me.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And you are wrong again. You should read things more carefully or get you braille machine fixed.

But as stated by Dr. M his post was about GUNS used in a violent way.

Oh and doc two names come to mind...Lynette Alice "Squeaky" Fromme and John Hinckley Jr, both took shots at Republican Presidents if I'm not mistaken.

Both are again outside your 30 year window, but fuck it.

Hinkley's attempt was less than thirty years ago, but not much less.

 

[sr71plt]

I said anywhere close to equality, Zeb. Do try reading the postings.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."

- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."

- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

 

[DeeZire]

Again you don't fucking read the posts do you? You just puke up a reply to what you thought you read.

Dr. M was talking about gun violence...I'm talking about name calling. You sure are a dumbass aren't you? Oh and when did you stop beating your wife?

Uh.... Zeb, old buddy, here is a portion of the Dr. M post addressing hate speech, not gun violence.

Over the last 30 years or so, ad hominem vilification of the political opposition has been developed and exploited as a political tool, and the fact is, it's a technique that was born and perfected on right-wing talk radio. It's a technique that ignores the legitimate concern of politics, which is public policy, and goes straight for attacking the people who support it. Liberals aren't just people who have different ideas about policy any more. They're traitors, communists, idiots, politically correct weak willed assholes. Ultimately, they're the enemy. They're legitimate targets.

For a better understanding of how the Right manages to constantly win the war of words, google Frank Luntz, who helped Newt Gingrich write the Contract with America, and gave the R's a list of offensive words to use when describing their opponents. He is still active today. He came out with a memo on how to defeat healthcare reform in 2009 (don't call it the "Public Option" call it a "government takeover") and another one on how to kill financial reform. Most of the language you hear coming from the Right has been vetted by Frank Luntz. He's really quite good at what he does. If the Left could only come up with someone with his skill set, (Orwellian speech) they'd have a chance. Unfortunately, the Left thinks if they just present the facts, they'll win the argument. Wrong. The public doesn't respond to facts, they respond to words that evoke an emotional response.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

True.

Edward de Bono confirms that people love bull shit, plastic trophies, and flattery. People believe the best about themselves and the worst of others. They know that race/cash/sex and a sterling resume/references will get you a better job than resume & references alone.

Effective politics is the art of reminding you of what you already believe or getting you to ignore the facts before you.

 

[oggbashan]

We do it differently, but is it better?

Yesterday Labour won a by-election retaining their seat in the House of Commons that was vacated when their candidate elected last May was found to have LIED about his opponent.

An MP lost his seat because he lied.

If some of the rhetoric used in the US by both sides was used in the UK, some of those using it could be jailed for inciting racial hatred.

Is that better than letting the hatred out in the open?

I don't know.

Og

 

[xssve]

It is largely established in psychology that acting out on negative emotions does not have a cathartic effect, it tends to solidify rather than mitigate them.

At the same time, the UK's slander laws are fairly draconian, truth is an absolute defense here, and public figures are always fair game - short of threatening to kill them.

I'm also aware that certain kinds of porn are subject to censorship, though I don't know how this is working out in praxis.

 

[trysail]

LOL...you've got to be kidding or you just ignore the the slights and disparagements.

Point me to some posts in which people called you names.

I'm going to assume this was intended to be humorous— at least, I sure hope so 'cause when I saw it, I burst into laughter and haven't stopped laughing ever since.

Thanks; I'll go through the rest of the day with a smile on my face.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is probably the best known example of violent political rhetoric in US history: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912465,00.html

 

[cloudy]

This is probably the best known example of violent political rhetoric in US history: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912465,00.html

1979? "Whip his ass"? Seriously?

 

[stephen55]

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Violent Rhetoric-------------> Violence


Violence----------------------> Violent Rhetoric


Violent Rhetoric-------------> Violence


Violence----------------------> Violent Rhetoric


and so on...ad nauseum....


Add insanely easy access to handguns, AK-47s, thirty shot magazines, (?) fifty shot magazines...including insanely easy access by insane people...


--------------------------> Virginia Tech, Tucson Arizona, École Polytechnique de Montreal...


As Dr. Phil might ask, "The status quo...how's that working out for you?"

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yesterday Labour won a by-election retaining their seat in the House of Commons that was vacated when their candidate elected last May was found to have LIED about his opponent.

An MP lost his seat because he lied.

If some of the rhetoric used in the US by both sides was used in the UK, some of those using it could be jailed for inciting racial hatred.

Is that better than letting the hatred out in the open?

I don't know.

Og

To those who become the victim of such hatreds, trust me-- latent is somewhat preferable to overt.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
This is probably the best known example of violent political rhetoric in US history: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...912465,00.html

1979? "Whip his ass"? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. At the time, it caused quite a flap. This was not considered to be presidential language at the time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, seriously. At the time, it caused quite a flap. This was not considered to be presidential language at the time. eek:

So what?

 

[oggbashan]

To those who become the victim of such hatreds, trust me-- latent is somewhat preferable to overt.

This is Wikipedia's article on UK laws about Hate Speech

Some people consider that the laws cover too much, others that they don't cover enough, e.g. 'blasphemy' only covers Christian beliefs. However the law against blasphemy is NOT enforced and attempts to extend it to cover Muslim beliefs have been rejected.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It is largely established in psychology that acting out on negative emotions does not have a cathartic effect, it tends to solidify rather than mitigate them.

At the same time, the UK's slander laws are fairly draconian, truth is an absolute defense here, and public figures are always fair game - short of threatening to kill them.

I'm also aware that certain kinds of porn are subject to censorship, though I don't know how this is working out in praxis.

I dont agree there are negative emotions. Emotions are emotions. You feel what you feel.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So what?

So this was a famous example of violent rhetoric. It may have made the use of the word "ass" acceptable in polite company.

Of course, nobody took it literally, just as they don't take such comments literally.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So this was a famous example of violent rhetoric. It may have made the use of the word "ass" acceptable in polite company.

Of course, nobody took it literally, just as they don't take such comments literally.

Sweetie, even if Carter did phrase it with a shocking word, "Whip his butt" was still not considered violent rhetoric-- even at the time.

You're grasping for conversational straws here.

 

[oggbashan]

This and the video are more representative of the US than politicians slanging each other.

Og