Violent rhetoric

[Stella_Omega]

Over at my favorite poltical site these days we call the efforts of those trying to show that the 'Left' is just as bad as the 'Right' 'The Magical Balance Fairy.'

It's a site run by a man of avowed conservative principles.

When the news of the Srebrenica massacre started getting out, a reporter was talking to a Bosnian woman. She was very upset because she wanted to tell him about the murder of a Bosnian man by Serb Muslims-- they had killed him with knives. When the reporter told her about all of the bodies of Muslim men, women, girls and boys that had just been found, she said; "Yeah, well-- the Muslims STABBED that man to death!"

 

[Boxlicker101]

The biggest difference I see between my list and bachmann's list is that mine are all public figures and hers is private citizens-- many of whom are publicly displaying their anger but not as authority figures.

You might not find much difference between Rush Limbaugh casually joking about "not killing all" the libs and someone who feels targeted by him wishing Limbaugh would die before he does any more damage-- such as myself, I freely admit it, but I am not a public authority, pundit, or leader. I don't take commercial sponsers' money while telling "kill the cons" jokes. I am not a politician that paint's rifle sights over other politician's faces.

I know-- you will not understand the difference, Box.

First, which Bachmann is that? Is that Michelle Bachmann from MN? I haven't seen her list. However, I would like to point out that, in the past, there have been posts on this forum citing signs carried by members of the TEA Party, with no mention of the fact the members are ordinary citizens who are expressing only their own opinions. I fully agree we should only be looking at utterances by public figures, but that has not usually been the case so far.

I cited Keith Olberman, who is comparable to Rush Limbaugh, although maybe not as well known. Pure mentioned a member of the House who expressed a wish that a gubernatorial candidate should be murdered. Given time, I am quite sure I can find as much violent rhetoric by fairly prominent leftists as you can by comparable people from the right.

Sarah Palin has a map showing rifle cross hairs superimposed on congressional districts and referring to those districts as "targets?" Okay. Howard Dean, or somebody like him has a similar map showing bullseyes and uses the same kind of wording.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with describing the opposition as "enemies" or stronger words, such as "war criminals" or "Nazis" or "Socialists," or similar terms, as long as the speaker is referring to the opposition as a group and not singling out one person. I also see nothing wrong with using violent verbs, such as "destroy," "crush," "wipe out," etc., as long as such violent rhetoric is not directed at a specific person. Some people may decry this kind of thing, but most Americans recognize it as politics as usual.

BTW, if Frank Luntz is good at stringing words together to manipulate listeners, I say "More power to him." The Big O is a pretty good orator too, given prompters.

 

[Boxlicker101]

When the news of the Srebrenica massacre started getting out, a reporter was talking to a Bosnian woman. She was very upset because she wanted to tell him about the murder of a Bosnian man by Serb Muslims-- they had killed him with knives. When the reporter told her about all of the bodies of Muslim men, women, girls and boys that had just been found, she said; "Yeah, well-- the Muslims STABBED that man to death!"

First, was the man stabbed by the Muslims one of those who had killed the Muslim men, women and children, or was he just a man who happened to share the same nationality as the actual killers? In the US, we would call that LYNCHING.

Second, this reminds me a great deal of some Liberals who are opposed to the death penalty. When some evil person, such as Ted Bundy or another like him is put to death, they cry for him or her, and not for the many victims of the person being executed.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Let me simplify that even further - does the average person like a happy ending or an unhappy one?

People like endings that make sense and plausibly satisfy the conflict; some endings arent happy at all! GONE WITH THE WIND.

 

[Stella_Omega]

First, was the man stabbed by the Muslims one of those who had killed the Muslim men, women and children, or was he just a man who happened to share the same nationality as the actual killers? In the US, we would call that LYNCHING. eek:

He was the single person she knew of who had been killed by the Moslems; In her mind that balanced out the 40,000 deaths of Moslems. It was the magic balance fairy.

Second, this reminds me a great deal of some Liberals who are opposed to the death penalty. When some evil person, such as Ted Bundy or another like him is put to death, they cry for him or her, and not for the many victims of the person being executed. :

Liberals qua liberals cried for Ted Bundy? Really? Got proof?

yanno, the things you say just get more and more off the wall.

 

[Handley_Page]

The kind of rhetoric I've seen so far quoted would not be permitted in the UK - by Law. I think it's "incitement" or something.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The kind of rhetoric I've seen so far quoted would not be permitted in the UK - by Law. I think it's "incitement" or something.

Yes, it is incitement.

 

[Handley_Page]

Yes, it is incitement.

It's changed:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_crime#Encouraging_or_assisting_crime

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's changed:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_crime#Encouraging_or_assisting_crime

I am saying the speech that is considered acceptable in the USA is, without a doubt, incitement. The UK law has labelled it correctly, both ways.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
First, was the man stabbed by the Muslims one of those who had killed the Muslim men, women and children, or was he just a man who happened to share the same nationality as the actual killers? In the US, we would call that LYNCHING. eek:

He was the single person she knew of who had been killed by the Moslems; In her mind that balanced out the 40,000 deaths of Moslems. It was the magic balance fairy.

How do you know he was the only person she knew of? Was he the woman's husband or some other close relative? I hope you don't think the murdeer by the Muslims was justified by the fact their victim shared some characteristics as those wo did the mass murdering elsewhere. Under that concept, which I disagree with, it would be justified for Americans to go around murdering every Muslim in sight because of 9-11.

Quote:
Second, this reminds me a great deal of some Liberals who are opposed to the death penalty. When some evil person, such as Ted Bundy or another like him is put to death, they cry for him or her, and not for the many victims of the person being executed. :

Liberals qua liberals cried for Ted Bundy? Really? Got proof?

I use Ted Bundy as an example, which is what I said, if you had read the post. You know as well as I do how most Liberals oppose capital punishment.
Yanno, cry doesn't only mean weep; it also means to loudly express oneself in complaints.

yanno, the things you say just get more and more off the wall.

Can you prove that.

 

[amicus]

Anytime Stella, DeeZire, sr71 enter a political discussion, especially one that the 'anti politics on the forum' crowd that whines because no one appreciates their 'bleeding heart' progressivism, the discussion degenerates into name calling and the worst kind of political rhetoric, the very same they claim to detest.

Democrats and the entire left spectrum of the politics universe continually want to act to 'fix things' by imposing new programs, new rules, new regulatons, new taxes; the entire left looks pon the general public, society, as a sociological entity to be manipulated and molded to fit their concept of what a society should be.

Unfortunately, the Republicans, for the most part, have bought into this 'ruling class' mentality and are no better in office than the Democrats; they both want to manage the lives of over 300 million people and direct them along courses they deem proper and good.

It is embarrassing to watch mainstream Repubicans verbally stumble around when someone like Chris Matthews on MSNBC asks pointedly, 'name just one program in government you would cut, just one! And the Republicans always fail to answer.

They should answer firmly, 'all of the government programs, abolished or cut to the bare bones...' they should also enforce a hiring freeze for all government departments and begin decreasing by ten percent a month, the total number of government employees and programs.

Democrats, the champions of the poor and underprivileged, truly believe that the common man is too dumb to manage his own life's affairs and that the compassionate left, with the public's best interests at heart, will happily dispense other peoples funds, energies, time and lives in a Herculean effort to manage every single aspect of every single citizen's life.

I am about to create and Post a Thread on 'Entitlements', Social Security and Medicare....ur gonna love it!

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

How do you know he was the only person she knew of? Was he the woman's husband or some other close relative? I hope you don't think the murdeer by the Muslims was justified by the fact their victim shared some characteristics as those wo did the mass murdering elsewhere. Under that concept, which I disagree with, it would be justified for Americans to go around murdering every Muslim in sight because of 9-11.

I use Ted Bundy as an example, which is what I said, if you had read the post. You know as well as I do how most Liberals oppose capital punishment.
Yanno, cry doesn't only mean weep; it also means to loudly express oneself in complaints.

Can you prove that.

You bring my proof right to the bench. Three incredibly disingenuous-- not to say stupid-- asservations in three paragraphs.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

How do you know he was the only person she knew of? Was he the woman's husband or some other close relative? I hope you don't think the murder by the Muslims was justified by the fact their victim shared some characteristics as those wo did the mass murdering elsewhere. Under that concept, which I disagree with, it would be justified for Americans to go around murdering every Muslim in sight because of 9-11.

I use Ted Bundy as an example, which is what I said, if you had read the post. You know as well as I do how most Liberals oppose capital punishment.

Yanno, cry doesn't only mean weep; it also means to loudly express oneself in complaints.

Can you prove that.

You bring my proof right to the bench. Three incredibly disingenuous-- not to say stupid-- asservations in three paragraphs.

Here is a dictionary definition of cry:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cry

I believe most American Liberals, if they are honest about it, would admit they are opposed to capital punishment.

The first paragraph includes questions, which are not asservations, and the rest of it seems reasonable to me. Do you believe Americans have a right to murder Muslims because of 9-11? I don't, and my statement to that effect is described by you as a disingenhuous - not to say stupid - asservation. Do you, then, believe Americans DO have a right to murder Muslims?

 

[DeeZire]

....Personally, I see nothing wrong with describing the opposition as "enemies" or stronger words, such as "war criminals" or "Nazis" or "Socialists," or similar terms, as long as the speaker is referring to the opposition as a group and not singling out one person. I also see nothing wrong with using violent verbs, such as "destroy," "crush," "wipe out," etc., as long as such violent rhetoric is not directed at a specific person. Some people may decry this kind of thing, but most Americans recognize it as politics as usual.

BTW, if Frank Luntz is good at stringing words together to manipulate listeners, I say "More power to him." The Big O is a pretty good orator too, given prompters.

So, to summarize, your approve of NOT discussing the issues in political debate? How, exactly, does that further the interests of the citizens? How are we supposed to solve our problems if we can't even talk about them without reducing the dialogue to a name-calling contest?

The fact that you think "most Americans" accept dysfunctional political discourse as acceptable does not automatically make it acceptable. Most Americans supported slavery, for cryin' out loud. Most Americans thought Saddam Hussein bombed the Twin Towers. Most Americans are clueless idiots. Our task as enlightened citizens is to raise awareness, not accept ignorance as the norm. Think of setting the bar higher Box, not lower. Our survival as a civilized society depends on it.

 

[Pure]

How I wish

ami It is embarrassing to watch mainstream Repubicans verbally stumble around when someone like Chris Matthews on MSNBC asks pointedly, 'name just one program in government you would cut, just one! And the Republicans always fail to answer.

They should answer firmly, 'all of the government programs, abolished or cut to the bare bones...' they should also enforce a hiring freeze for all government departments and begin decreasing by ten percent a month, the total number of government employees and programs.

please, please ami, convince as many repubs as possible of this. esp. go after medicare and social security, telling folks, 'manage your own savings and investments--hope you've already started-- oh, and we have LOTS of tax credits for you.'

in fact, ami, given people's desires, they'd look for security through private entities; privately managed retirement programs where they pay a couple hundred a month to Fidelity Whatsis and hope the damn thing doesn't go under, for there is no gov't insurance backing it up.

this sort of situation would quickly show what is 'saved' when taxes are lowered, i.e. nothing. it's simply paid to Aetna (plus 50%) instead of to the govt. there being no free lunches as you know.

please, please do it. i'd hope the democrats pick up the mantle of social democracy. then people, confronting your 'free market' and the 'freedom' to lose retirement funds, would flock to the banner. the US, the last holdout among advanced nations would join the vast majority.

 

[xssve]

People like endings that make sense and plausibly satisfy the conflict; some endings arent happy at all! GONE WITH THE WIND.

I mean't the average person, not sociopaths - we are not talking about Gone with the Wind, we're talking about Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
....Personally, I see nothing wrong with describing the opposition as "enemies" or stronger words, such as "war criminals" or "Nazis" or "Socialists," or similar terms, as long as the speaker is referring to the opposition as a group and not singling out one person. I also see nothing wrong with using violent verbs, such as "destroy," "crush," "wipe out," etc., as long as such violent rhetoric is not directed at a specific person. Some people may decry this kind of thing, but most Americans recognize it as politics as usual.

BTW, if Frank Luntz is good at stringing words together to manipulate listeners, I say "More power to him." The Big O is a pretty good orator too, given prompters.

So, to summarize, your approve of NOT discussing the issues in political debate? How, exactly, does that further the interests of the citizens? How are we supposed to solve our problems if we can't even talk about them without reducing the dialogue to a name-calling contest?

The fact that you think "most Americans" accept dysfunctional political discourse as acceptable does not automatically make it acceptable. Most Americans supported slavery, for cryin' out loud. Most Americans thought Saddam Hussein bombed the Twin Towers. Most Americans are clueless idiots. Our task as enlightened citizens is to raise awareness, not accept ignorance as the norm. Think of setting the bar higher Box, not lower. Our survival as a civilized society depends on it.

Don't be silly. Of course I approve of discussing the issues in political debate. The strong language I mention is mostly intended to rally the troops and get them active in campaigns and to get donations from them. Talking like that would be counter-productive when aimed at masses of voters, because they would rather hear actual facts than rhetoric, violent or otherwise.

Can you prove most Americans supported slavery or believe Saddam bombed the Twin Towers. I realize those descriptions would apply to some Americans, but I challenge you to prove most Americans felt that way.

It's interesting you say "Most Americans are clueless idiots. Our task as enlightened citizens is to raise awareness, not accept ignorance as the norm." because that is the leftist mantra, although they seldom admit it. I have always said leftists are elitists, and they think that way, but left-leaning people here have denied it until now. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe most people are intelligent enough to handle their own affairs without the nanny state to look after them.

 

[squarejohn]

You are a pussy, through and through.

Go put on a skirt and look for some big guy to protect you.

Amicus

Amicus, that has to be the funniest reply I've read in a good long time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here is a dictionary definition of cry:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cry

I believe most American Liberals, if they are honest about it, would admit they are opposed to capital punishment.

The first paragraph includes questions, which are not asservations, and the rest of it seems reasonable to me. Do you believe Americans have a right to murder Muslims because of 9-11? I don't, and my statement to that effect is described by you as a disingenhuous - not to say stupid - asservation. Do you, then, believe Americans DO have a right to murder Muslims?

You know, Box, I think you say stuff like this in the hopes that it gets you attention. Why not start a topic on pussy eating? I'd rather talk about something uou know. Watching you try to be clever is depressing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

The GOP has no intentions of cutting squat or creating jobs. America is being liquidated, and when all the manufacturing is gone and every dime of pension money has been spent to buy gold for the elites, both parties will hand us over to the Chinese for agricultural labor. Its our future.

 

[DeeZire]

Here's one for you Box.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...zona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP

A man wounded in last weekend's shootings in Tucson was arrested today for threats he allegedly made towards a man who expressed support for gun ownership during a taping of an ABC News town hall.

It is heartening to see that when liberals make death threats, they get arrested. I am patiently waiting for Ann Coulter to be charged with the same offense. (Box - this is where you attempt to explain how, when Ann Coulter makes a death threat, it's different.)

 

[DeeZire]

...Can you prove most Americans supported slavery or believe Saddam bombed the Twin Towers. I realize those descriptions would apply to some Americans, but I challenge you to prove most Americans felt that way. ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

As you may recall, Box, this bogus idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 was promoted by Bush/Cheney as fact. This is an example of the type of deceptive rhetoric you seem to approve of.

On the slavery issue, here's a quote from a historical article on the subject.

Throughout most of the colonial period, opposition to slavery among white Americans was virtually nonexistent. Settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries came from sharply stratified societies in which the wealthy savagely exploited members of the lower classes. Lacking a later generation's belief in natural human equality, they saw little reason to question the enslavement of Africans. As they sought to mold a docile labor force, planters resorted to harsh, repressive measures that included liberal use of whipping and branding

As you can see from the above, the abolition of slavery was the result of the enlightenment of society. It took hundreds of years for this enlightenment to occur. The political rhetoric you approve of is trying to do the exact opposite. Branding enlightenment as "elitism" is another example of the Frank Luntz approach - demonize your opponent so the actual issue is avoided. The Right does this because if more people actually examined the issues objectively, they would discover the Right is pushing an agenda based on lies, innuendo, and slogans, but lacking in logic or facts.

Your continued support of this deceptive agenda does validate the "clueless" label being directed your way. In other words, when you are called clueless, it's not the result of the discussion devolving into name-calling, it's simply an accurate assessment of the situation.

Personally, I think you can overcome your "cluelessness" by taking a step back and being objective about the information you encounter. There's a whole new world out there Box. All you have to do to see it is take your blinders off.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Slavery and villainy were common during the 17th and 18th Centuries in Europe, and business as usual in Africa, so why should America be different from the rest of the world? Africans didnt care, it was profitable to sell captives to the Arabs and Europeans! They sell slaves today!

When America did emancipate slaves we got exactly what was predicted: Overnite old people, women, and children were out on their asses with no safe harbor from want. Cuz overnite no one had any legal obligation to feed, shelter, and clothe them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here's one for you Box.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...zona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP



It is heartening to see that when liberals make death threats, they get arrested. I am patiently waiting for Ann Coulter to be charged with the same offense. (Box - this is where you attempt to explain how, when Ann Coulter makes a death threat, it's different.)

Fuller did make a death threat to the man in the audience, but he will probably not be charged, because of mitigating curcumstances. Whom did Ann Coulter threaten? In the short list of so-called violent rhetoric on this thread, she was quoted twice. Once it was about a mass murder that happened seven years earlier and the other was a statement in support of capital punishment as a deterrent. I don't agree with her in everything she says, but I also don't believe she has made any threats in these two instances. I do believe she is the threatened one more often than vice-versa.

BTW, did you ever see the videotape where Jesse Jackson expressed a wish to castrate a US senator who was a presidential candidate?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
...Can you prove most Americans supported slavery or believe Saddam bombed the Twin Towers. I realize those descriptions would apply to some Americans, but I challenge you to prove most Americans felt that way. ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Quote:
Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.


As you may recall, Box, this bogus idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 was promoted by Bush/Cheney as fact. This is an example of the type of deceptive rhetoric you seem to approve of.

On the slavery issue, here's a quote from a historical article on the subject.

Quote:
Throughout most of the colonial period, opposition to slavery among white Americans was virtually nonexistent. Settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries came from sharply stratified societies in which the wealthy savagely exploited members of the lower classes. Lacking a later generation's belief in natural human equality, they saw little reason to question the enslavement of Africans. As they sought to mold a docile labor force, planters resorted to harsh, repressive measures that included liberal use of whipping and branding


As you can see from the above, the abolition of slavery was the result of the enlightenment of society. It took hundreds of years for this enlightenment to occur. The political rhetoric you approve of is trying to do the exact opposite. Branding enlightenment as "elitism" is another example of the Frank Luntz approach - demonize your opponent so the actual issue is avoided. The Right does this because if more people actually examined the issues objectively, they would discover the Right is pushing an agenda based on lies, innuendo, and slogans, but lacking in logic or facts.

Your continued support of this deceptive agenda does validate the "clueless" label being directed your way. In other words, when you are called clueless, it's not the result of the discussion devolving into name-calling, it's simply an accurate assessment of the situation.

Personally, I think you can overcome your "cluelessness" by taking a step back and being objective about the information you encounter. There's a whole new world out there Box. All you have to do to see it is take your blinders off.

The first link is more than eight years old, and says most Americans thought it likely Saddam was personally involved. . That was a long time ago, and is a far cry from what you said, in the present tense, that most Americans believe Saddam bombed the Twin Towers. Do you have anything current in support of your statement?

As for slavery, if you said most people did not oppose it, I could accept that. There were abolitionists at the time, who opposed slavery, many of them white, and many of them among the worst thugs in history. You may have heard of Jayhawkers and John Brown.

Personally, I think it probable most white Americans didn't think about slavery much one way or another, being too busy with their own business. I also think it probable this attitude prevailed even during the Civil War.

In the post I responded to, you said this: "Most Americans are clueless idiots. Our task as enlightened citizens is to raise awareness, not accept ignorance as the norm."

Can you honestly say that is not an extremely elitist statement?