Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Politicizing the AZ massacre

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 8:52:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seizing upon the moment like opportunistic vultures, the media has managed to politicize a tragedy. (Hang on, let me act surprised). MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting. They also focused on the verbiage she uses, like "reload," to insinuate her violent nature towards political opposition.
As much as I couldn't possibly describe Palin as being any less of a qualified presidential candidate as I do now, I find the argument against her seriously lacking any credibility. Palin has been using speech like that many times when there are no political overtones attached, except the image she wants to project. She's obviously pro-hunting and strong gun right advocate, and on that basis she wants to identify with the NRA crowd. She's appealing to her demographic, which is not mentally disturbed, homicidal maniacs.

To the extent that she somehow coerced an insane man to commit murder is terribly asinine, and I find a bigger correlation between the media's lackluster ratings and their penchant to politicize anything. A cheap and lowly ploy, really.

I think any attempt to draw parallels does so on the pretense of creating a false dichotomy.

Your thoughts?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:30:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 8:52:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Seizing upon the moment like opportunistic vultures, the media has managed to politicize a tragedy. (Hang on, let me act surprised). MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting. They also focused on the verbiage she uses, like "reload," to insinuate her violent nature towards political opposition.
As much as I couldn't possibly describe Palin as being any less of a qualified presidential candidate as I do now, I find the argument against her seriously lacking any credibility. Palin has been using speech like that many times when there are no political overtones attached, except the image she wants to project. She's obviously pro-hunting and strong gun right advocate, and on that basis she wants to identify with the NRA crowd. She's appealing to her demographic, which is not mentally disturbed, homicidal maniacs.

To the extent that she somehow coerced an insane man to commit murder is terribly asinine, and I find a bigger correlation between the media's lackluster ratings and their penchant to politicize anything. A cheap and lowly ploy, really.

I think any attempt to draw parallels does so on the pretense of creating a false dichotomy.

Your thoughts?

I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.

I've also noticed that since Dan Quayle the left has taken a select few and hammered at them for being stupid or evil or both. The incessant barrage against these few have been completely unrestrained and brutal. However, it's also been quite effective in tarnishing the careers of these same people. They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:39:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.:

Agreed.

They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.:

The Tea Party movement, in my opinion, has been infiltrated by some people who did fit in this category. Be that as it may, what is tantamount to character assassinatio of the whole lot of them is certainly unwarranted.

The amusing thing about the Left is that they're so busy blustering about the bias of FOX news that they can't seem to see the opposite bias on virtually every other network. But really, I'm tired of the political commentary. I don't need to be told how to interpret the news... just report it, that's your job. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:58:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:39:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.:

Agreed.

They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.:

The Tea Party movement, in my opinion, has been infiltrated by some people who did fit in this category. Be that as it may, what is tantamount to character assassinatio of the whole lot of them is certainly unwarranted.

The amusing thing about the Left is that they're so busy blustering about the bias of FOX news that they can't seem to see the opposite bias on virtually every other network. But really, I'm tired of the political commentary. I don't need to be told how to interpret the news... just report it, that's your job. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions.

Like i said, it's really effective. They have a great tool of the media (sin Fox - which of course is a target as a result) and if i mention a few names the connotations, despite the truth of who they are, will be negative to the average person - Nixon, George Bush, Cheney, Palin. Then people that deserve a bad reputation have a different one created like Jimmy Carter. It's complete manipulation of our politics and history.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:08:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like usual, American politics not only disgusts me by its lack of substantiation and faulty logic but also manages to kind of piss me off at the same time. Do we truly need to fault an entire political party for the sake of TV ratings? Are they willing to forsake thier intelligence for a quick shot at Sarah Palin? I'm not surprised that Palin uses "reload" -- I would be more worried if she was using words like "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" which IS in the dictionary. Hell, the most complicated word she'd ever use would be "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", and that's because it's a song.

Major networks are pandering to their ignorant viewers. They live by their ratings. And instead of adding substance to their shows -- they simply add useless technological components to try and detract from their lack of evidence and sanity.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:09:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:58:24 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:39:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.:

Agreed.

They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.:

The Tea Party movement, in my opinion, has been infiltrated by some people who did fit in this category. Be that as it may, what is tantamount to character assassinatio of the whole lot of them is certainly unwarranted.

The amusing thing about the Left is that they're so busy blustering about the bias of FOX news that they can't seem to see the opposite bias on virtually every other network. But really, I'm tired of the political commentary. I don't need to be told how to interpret the news... just report it, that's your job. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions.

Like i said, it's really effective. They have a great tool of the media (sin Fox - which of course is a target as a result) and if i mention a few names the connotations, despite the truth of who they are, will be negative to the average person - Nixon, George Bush, Cheney, Palin. Then people that deserve a bad reputation have a different one created like Jimmy Carter. It's complete manipulation of our politics and history.

Yeah, but you can't say the right has not done the same to select members on the left.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:30:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:09:25 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:58:24 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:39:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.:

Agreed.

They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.:

The Tea Party movement, in my opinion, has been infiltrated by some people who did fit in this category. Be that as it may, what is tantamount to character assassinatio of the whole lot of them is certainly unwarranted.

The amusing thing about the Left is that they're so busy blustering about the bias of FOX news that they can't seem to see the opposite bias on virtually every other network. But really, I'm tired of the political commentary. I don't need to be told how to interpret the news... just report it, that's your job. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions.

Like i said, it's really effective. They have a great tool of the media (sin Fox - which of course is a target as a result) and if i mention a few names the connotations, despite the truth of who they are, will be negative to the average person - Nixon, George Bush, Cheney, Palin. Then people that deserve a bad reputation have a different one created like Jimmy Carter. It's complete manipulation of our politics and history.

Yeah, but you can't say the right has not done the same to select members on the left.

Not nearly with the same efficiency. If there was a guy equivalent to George Soros on the right he'd probably be in jail now. The right is terrible at this stuff, and the left trumps them every time. The right just doesn't have the same resources. The one medium that they have is talk radio, and that is maligned constantly, and we inch toward 'The Fairness Doctrine' every day.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:15:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, but you can't say the right has not done the same to select members on the left.:

Of course they have, which only leaves an impartial, non-partisan approach. Like Annhasle touched on, the whole political climate is suspect. A lot of Americans, such as her and I, have grown tired of it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:20:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does this surprise anyone? This happens to be an example of where the Left is overreacting and making unwarranted connections, just as the Right has done innumerable times before. One of the last times I can think of off the top of my head was when that Muslim soldier shot people up on an army base. The Right was going crazy then, so yeah... this is not really shocking, and doesn't say anything about the Left in particular that couldn't be said about the Right a zillion times over. People politicize everything. It's retarded (though there are political ties to this case, it seems -- I haven't been following the story much).
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:30:15 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:09:25 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:58:24 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:39:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm less interested in Sarah's reputation than i am the overall thrust of trying to put some restraint on free speech as a result of this tragedy. It seems to be completely fabricated as a pretext for political manipulation.:

Agreed.

They have expanded to the entire Tea Party movement by equating them with being stupid, racist, gun lovers, and that has proven effective too.:

The Tea Party movement, in my opinion, has been infiltrated by some people who did fit in this category. Be that as it may, what is tantamount to character assassinatio of the whole lot of them is certainly unwarranted.

The amusing thing about the Left is that they're so busy blustering about the bias of FOX news that they can't seem to see the opposite bias on virtually every other network. But really, I'm tired of the political commentary. I don't need to be told how to interpret the news... just report it, that's your job. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions.

Like i said, it's really effective. They have a great tool of the media (sin Fox - which of course is a target as a result) and if i mention a few names the connotations, despite the truth of who they are, will be negative to the average person - Nixon, George Bush, Cheney, Palin. Then people that deserve a bad reputation have a different one created like Jimmy Carter. It's complete manipulation of our politics and history.

Yeah, but you can't say the right has not done the same to select members on the left.

Not nearly with the same efficiency. If there was a guy equivalent to George Soros on the right he'd probably be in jail now. The right is terrible at this stuff, and the left trumps them every time. The right just doesn't have the same resources. The one medium that they have is talk radio, and that is maligned constantly, and we inch toward 'The Fairness Doctrine' every day.

I would disagree. While it may not be quite the same efficiency, I believe it is close enough to make an argument that it is. Rush Limbaugh blamed the time square bombing attempt on democrats as well as plenty of others. He is listened to by more people then any other talk show, or new show, news paper.

They are everywhere and on both sides. But really, every shock jock is just in it to make the money. The more shocking you can be, the more people will turn and watch (just like a car crash on the side of the road causes major traffic, even if it is not blocking any lanes), and so advertising revenue goes up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:26:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Our system is two-party and competitive... what do you expect? Every possible angle is exploited to its fullest advantage. The people are jerked around in the process while bozos on both sides get paid by us to squabble like complete idiots.
no comment
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:43:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:26:43 PM, Caramel wrote:
Our system is two-party and competitive... what do you expect? Every possible angle is exploited to its fullest advantage. The people are jerked around in the process while bozos on both sides get paid by us to squabble like complete idiots.

Lol, no it's not. I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. In economic terms, we would call what our dear friends in Washington have going on an "oligopoly."
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 12:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:43:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:26:43 PM, Caramel wrote:
Our system is two-party and competitive... what do you expect? Every possible angle is exploited to its fullest advantage. The people are jerked around in the process while bozos on both sides get paid by us to squabble like complete idiots.

Lol, no it's not. I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. In economic terms, we would call what our dear friends in Washington have going on an "oligopoly."

One thing I'll never be surprised at is hearing about how surprised people are to hear what I have to say. You can call it an oligopoly, a monopoly, a republic, a democracy, a socialistic state, a capitalistic state, a soft tyranny, or an aristocracy - I prefer to just call it a problem. All of these labels are true to some extent and depending on your political point of view you will emphasize one over the others and try to drown out complaints directed at your base with complaints against others'. I concentrate my attacks on capitalism because I see it as the root cause of each one of these problematic paradigms. The decision that property rights must be enforced by police underlies the entire machine. The rich are at the top making sure property rights (of which they own the most) are always protected, while the poor are acting like greedy "mini-me's" to the rich instead of fighting back to achieve some sort of equality and balance. The tragedy is that, without this balance, our environment is going to become less and less suitable to our own development.
no comment
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 5:12:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, an overview. Sarah Palin is barely qualified to lead her household, much less a non-political political group like the Tea Party or, god forbid, the entire U.S

However.

The Tea Party, and it's associates, have been calling for violence for a long time, and while Sarah Palin may not have started this particular trend, she also hasn't done anything to stunt it, quite the opposite, she's basked in the adoration she gets for being a, to use her words, "Hockey Mom" who "Knows how to field-trip a dear" (which is interesting because I thought field-stripping was something hunters did to their guns, not their prey...Nobody gave her any bullets...right?)

Besides that, however, you have the Tea Party's damn near fanatical hatred of just about anything Liberal, especially when related to President Obama.

When you fan the flames of hatred and use gun-related language and put crosshairs, of all things, on the districts currently run by liberal democratically elected Senators or Members of Congress then sooner or later some f*cking idiot is going to assume that these are instructions rather than political slogans thinly disguised as metaphors for democratic action.

The point against Keith Olbermann in particular is a pathetic one at best, he's been warning people about the inflammatory nature of the Tea Party and it's supporters pretty much since it began, and it doesn't take a genius to know that if you have a group of people who are paranoid about their ability to own firearms (anyone remember the brief "the liberals are gonna take my guns!" rhetoric?) then sooner or later you're going to end up with a gun in the hands of someone who places no value into human life, particularly if the humans who have those lives disagree with him on small details like the fundamental way that their country is being run.

If you demonise and criticise and discriminate and hate something enough and encourage your followers to do so then sooner or later one of them is going to go too far.

The relevance of this to Jared Loughner? None. None whatsoever. So why do it?

In order to fully understand Loughner's mentality, we must look at who he targeted and why.

It's clear from the nature of the attack that Ms/Mrs/whatthef*ckever Giffords was his main target, his wikipedia page includes a quote from a classmate saying he described her as "fake" and his reading material consisted of Objectionist, Fascist, Communist and Democratic authors. Perhaps this was to throw off investigators or to troll the everloving hell out of the left wing and right wing pundits equally. I wonder if the books were new...

The alternative is that he had indeed read all of the books, and my knowledge of them depicts their chosen ideology as the perfect political system. Which meant that Jared immersed himself in fictional fake but perfect, simple worlds when the real world was very imperect and very complicated

What does that have to do with Giffords?

Well, his earlier use of the term "fake" to describe her isn't usually telling, until you take a closer look at the woman's career. She's a Blue Dog Democrat. Meaning she was a Democrat with Conservative ideas. Making her unofficially a Conservative agent in the Democrat camp. If Lougner saw her as a fake, then it'd be far worse than a simple Democrat being a fake. It made her a double agent, a traitor.

There's also Loughner's use of particular attitudes towards certain people, his wikipedia page speaks of him calling a woman who read a poem about abortion a terrorist. Aside from the obvious link between the extreme right wing and the burning of books and his dismissal of a poem, though the two are hardly equal, it is still the same kind of deluded attitude that the right wing, and the tea party in particular, has preyed upon in recent years.

So what does this mean about his political views? Nothing.
Was the Tea Party implicit in making him do these horrible things? No
Did the Tea Party use inflammatory language and gun metaphors that could be mistaken for actual instructions to kill, say if you were some kind of sociopath for instance? Yes.
Is Sarah Palin personally guilty of the above? Abso-fukken'-lutely.

Chances are we'll never know the guy's true political perspective, considering his literature I'd go so far as to suspect him of being an Anarchist, simply because the Anarchist's Cookbook is mysteriously missing from his little political library. Sometimes it's not what you find, it's what you don't find.

Oh, and for all you crying out "free speech is being beaten!" by all this, that's 100% of your daily reccomended allowance of horse sh!t. Inciting others to commit acts of violence or murder against another person, party or instituion is illegal under federal law. The Tea Party's and Sarah Palin's rhetoric in particular is already guilty of that on a softcore level. The debate is not about whether or not you should or should not be able to put gun sights on a goddamn political poster. The debate is not about whether or not you should use firearms metaphors like "Don't retreat, reload (which in itself implies that shots have been fired, you don't "reload" an empty or full weapon) and the debate is not even about whether or not Jared was a tea party activist or a Conservative in disguise. The debate is as follows, something, somewhere, somehow, pushed Jared over the edge and made him shoot a US politician point blank in the f*cking face before turning the gun on others including a nine year old girl for christ's sake. (who was born on september 11th 2001...surely the girl deserved better than this after being born on a day like that)

The question is, what did it?

This is not about free speech no matter what Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or any psuedo-intellectual bloggers say. This is about finding out what made that man snap.

You guys are Americans, stop being such a bunch of p*ssies!

Jared's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org...
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 5:12:10 PM, Veridas wrote:
(which is interesting because I thought field-stripping was something hunters did to their guns, not their prey...Nobody gave her any bullets...right?)

there's field 'dressing' which is gutting it... but I could see it being called stripping (though I don't really know the lingo)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 6:16:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When you fan the flames of hatred and use gun-related language and put crosshairs, of all things, on the districts currently run by liberal democratically elected Senators or Members of Congress then sooner or later some f*cking idiot is going to assume that these are instructions rather than political slogans thinly disguised as metaphors for democratic action.:

The bottom line is that there is no proof, whatsoever, that Loughner ever visited Palin's website or that he interpreted it as a "hit list." Because until you can do that, it's nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture.

The point against Keith Olbermann in particular is a pathetic one at best, he's been warning people about the inflammatory nature of the Tea Party:

Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are media blowhards who bluster about anything that might smear their political foes. Olbermann is a melodramatic fearmongerer. Suck his f*cking cock why don't you.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does it matter that the woman doesn't know what the fvck she is saying most of the time? What about her reference to blood libel? Either she had no idea what she was talking about, or she's a sadistic bitch. Either way, not someone who should be given a public speaking platform.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 8:12:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Case in point, if this goes on for much longer, the US, as it is now, will be royally screwed with little to no chance of recovery.
I miss the old members.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 10:26:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 6:26:05 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
Does it matter that the woman doesn't know what the fvck she is saying most of the time? What about her reference to blood libel? Either she had no idea what she was talking about, or she's a sadistic bitch. Either way, not someone who should be given a public speaking platform.

It's actually a valid term that has a separate meaning that evolved from its historical one.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 11:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We don't have the sense to avoid creating a media frenzy to help martyr potential serial killers. When each media outlet is competing for its ratings and is compelled to publicize atrocious acts relentlessly, we create a conflict of interests.
no comment
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2011 3:20:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Paradigm_L0st said:
The bottom line is that there is no proof, whatsoever, that Loughner ever visited Palin's website or that he interpreted it as a "hit list." Because until you can do that, it's nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture.

Then what, pray tell, could have made a man such as that go out and shoot a woman in the head at point blank range for being "fake?"

Besides which, PL, isn't there a greater question to be asked than "Why is Keith Olbermann demonising the right wing group that has spent so long demonising the candidate and administration that he put so much time and effort into supporting?" Which, frankly, is kind of a stupid question in itself. I didn't say Keith Olbermann is in any way perfect, but he's also not to blame in the same way that Bill O'Reilly isn't perfect, but also isn't to blame.

And the worst part is you're right, there's no proof, yet, that Loughner had any affiliation with the Tea Party or went to any of their rallies or went to any of Sarah Palin's speeches. If you read my entire post, you'd see that's pretty much what I said. However, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are the loudest and most well known group that uses the type of metaphors that could be mistaken (by a sociopath, for instance) as political instruction. Which is why it at least merits investigation and frankly I don't see why you want to argue about that.

If it is found that Loughner never had any relationship with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party greater than maybe occasionally seeing them on the news, then their names are cleared and they can go back to their psuedo-hateful little rants.

If a connection is found then it might get the Tea Party to buck their ideas up, besides potentially strengthening the party by forcing it to change it's ways, it may eventually lead to greater social acceptance if it can prove that it can learn from it's mistakes. (Not that I personally think it will, but hey, crossing my fingers)

Paradigm_L0st said:
Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are media blowhards who bluster about anything that might smear their political foes

Doesn't change the fact that the guy was right. You go tap dancing in a minefield, eventually you're gonna find a landmine.

Gavin.ogden said:
Does it matter that the woman doesn't know what the fvck she is saying most of the time? What about her reference to blood libel?

This was covered heavily in our papers over here, it seems that Sarah wasn't the first to use the term in relation to this instance (I think it was an editorial in the New York Times that used it first but don't quote me on that) however, that doesn't mean she knew what it meant, nor does it mean she knew that Giffords was Jewish. This is one aspect where you might as well flip a coin, either she got a idea from a newspaper (unlikely, considering her "what kind of newspapers do you read?" debacle, but possible) or she truly is a malicious self-serving b!tch with no sympathy for a woman who's been brained with a bullet.

Mongoose said:
It's actually a valid term that has a separate meaning that evolved from its historical one.

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2011 8:50:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 11:36:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
We don't have the sense to avoid creating a media frenzy to help martyr potential serial killers. When each media outlet is competing for its ratings and is compelled to publicize atrocious acts relentlessly, we create a conflict of interests.:

Most sensible post on this thread. Two thumbs way up
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2011 9:05:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Then what, pray tell, could have made a man such as that go out and shoot a woman in the head at point blank range for being "fake?":

Uhhhh, because he's nucking futs!!!! Have you really taken the time to watch his YouTube videos or know what reading material he praised? It's been reported that in his possession he had Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, which are ideological opposites, except for the fact that they both take statist positions.

And yet in YouTube videos he burns the American flag and indicates anarchist tendencies, claiming that the US government has a conspiracy to control grammar.

Adding all of that up only serves to validate that he's either an idiot who doesn't have the wherewithal to know that everything about his political stance is contradictory, or that he's just that insane.

Regardless, we don't have all the facts yet. It's useless to jump to conclusions at this point.

Besides which, PL, isn't there a greater question to be asked than "Why is Keith Olbermann demonising the right wing group that has spent so long demonising the candidate and administration that he put so much time and effort into supporting?" Which, frankly, is kind of a stupid question in itself. I didn't say Keith Olbermann is in any way perfect, but he's also not to blame in the same way that Bill O'Reilly isn't perfect, but also isn't to blame.:

No, of course not, because Keith Olbermann is your media darling. You're evidently so blinded by your bias you can't see they're the same damn thing.

If it is found that Loughner never had any relationship with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party greater than maybe occasionally seeing them on the news, then their names are cleared and they can go back to their psuedo-hateful little rants.:

How about the media is held accountable for their slanderous remarks? Even if Loughner visited the website of that moron, Palin, it doesn't give license to Loughner to execute people, especially since Palin was identifying with her demographic, not putting out a hit list to would-be assassins.

It makes about as much sense to blame Palin as it does blaming Jodie Foster for the Reagan assassination attempt more than, you know, the assassin, Hinckley.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2011 11:38:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Paradigm_L0st said:
At 1/14/2011 11:36:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
We don't have the sense to avoid creating a media frenzy to help martyr potential serial killers. When each media outlet is competing for its ratings and is compelled to publicize atrocious acts relentlessly, we create a conflict of interests.:

Most sensible post on this thread. Two thumbs way up

I wish I had seen this sooner. Besides the fact that it's the media's job to report on atrocities, it's also it's job to stir up debate and exchange of ideas whenever ANYTHING happens. You know. Like what's happening right now?

Paradigm_L0st said:
Uhhhh, because he's nucking futs!!!!

In the same way that all butterflies were born butterflies, I'm sure.

Paradigm_L0st said:
Have you really taken the time to watch his YouTube videos or know what reading material he praised?

I'll try not to be offended by that.

Paradigm_L0st said:
It's been reported that in his possession he had Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, which are ideological opposites, except for the fact that they both take statist positions.

And this is where you make it clear that you never read my initial post. Congratulations you simpering idiot. You know what else he had in his little library? Ayn Rand and Republic.

Paradigm_L0st said:
And yet in YouTube videos he burns the American flag and indicates anarchist tendencies, claiming that the US government has a conspiracy to control grammar.

See above.

Paradigm_L0st said:
Adding all of that up only serves to validate that he's either an idiot who doesn't have the wherewithal to know that everything about his political stance is contradictory, or that he's just that insane.

You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. There's a third possibility you haven't mentioned, namely that he was influenced by political literature and political mindsets and political observations and that his wealth of political books served not to form a self-contradictory political stance but instead to educate him. The fact that each of his books takes it's own viewpoint to the extreme and is written with as much passion as any modern day pundit tirade about the evils of their opponent party, and is naturally biased as such, not to mention extremist in their individual nature, it's equally possible that he simply began to view the world in political extremes. You know, the way some Conservatives in particular seem to these days.

There's also the fact that he could have read these books purely to find something else to believe in, the vast array of political attitudes says to me that he was looking for something.

Paradigm_L0st:
Regardless, we don't have all the facts yet. It's useless to jump to conclusions at this point.

Says the guy who just jumped to two or three.

Paradigm_L0st said:
No, of course not, because Keith Olbermann is your media darling

The fact that I pay attenti to the guy makes him my media darling? I suppose the knowledge that I also pay attention to Glenn Beck makes me just as psychotic and self-contradictory as Loughner, right?

Paradigm_L0st said:
You're evidently so blinded by your bias you can't see they're the same damn thing.

I might be inclined to believe had it not been for the fact that you were pretty quick on the draw to blame Olbermann personally for accusing Sarah Palin for inciting the attack on Giffords personally.

Paradigm_L0st said:
How about the media is held accountable for their slanderous remarks?

And this is where my earlier mentioned attention towards Mr Beck comes in handy. Heads up sparky, "The Media" is pretty much paid to criticise and attack, that's one of the way they draw people's attention towards the sh!t they think needs attention. Beck and Olbermann between them are an excellent example of two sides of the same coin, the two are opposite in political belief and in action, but their goals are the same. The instant you start blaming the media for "slanderous remarks" once, you'll have people doing it no matter what happens or who's to blame for anything. Criticised by people making remarks about you after cheating on your wife and getting a blowjob from an intern? "Slander!" Start two wars and crash the economy and get mocked for it? "Slander" and so on and so forth.

Paradigm_L0st said:
Even if Loughner visited the website of that moron, Palin, it doesn't give license to Loughner to execute people,

Way to miss the point. Getting a hint that isn't there and giving license to do something are two different things.

Paradigm_L0st:
Palin was identifying with her demographic, not putting out a hit list to would-be assassins.

Identifying with people who own guns.
Using gun-related language.
Who are or were scared of those guns being taken away
and who feel they should defend their right to have those guns
violently if necessary.
Not that a gun could help with violence, right?

Now that we've covered that, is there anything else you want to go over? Where babies come from, perhaps?

Paradigm_L0st said:
It makes about as much sense to blame Palin as it does blaming Jodie Foster for the Reagan assassination attempt more than, you know, the assassin, Hinckley.

I agree! Or calling Obama a Socialist.

Oops.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2011 3:32:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:08:42 AM, annhasle wrote:
Like usual, American politics not only disgusts me by its lack of substantiation and faulty logic but also manages to kind of piss me off at the same time. Do we truly need to fault an entire political party for the sake of TV ratings? Are they willing to forsake thier intelligence for a quick shot at Sarah Palin? I'm not surprised that Palin uses "reload" -- I would be more worried if she was using words like "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" which IS in the dictionary. Hell, the most complicated word she'd ever use would be "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", and that's because it's a song.

Major networks are pandering to their ignorant viewers. They live by their ratings. And instead of adding substance to their shows -- they simply add useless technological components to try and detract from their lack of evidence and sanity.

This is all very true, however, I have some sympathy with the OP's argument. It does appear that the shooter was no more than a disturbed sociopath who acted alone and who (and perhaps this point is more salient) had access to a gun.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...