Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition, 6 others killed in Arizona

[ag]

Again, the very point of all of this is very easy to understand. Rather or not anyone's rhetoric sparked the shooting, there are people who still need to stop using rhetoric that can incite trouble. We don't need anymore incidents like this, our political environment is out of control and it needs to be pulled back into stability.

And who is supposed to determine which of these "people" must cease exercising their First Amendment right to free political speech?

Themselves, and only themselves

[DrScholl]

Again, the very point of all of this is very easy to understand. Rather or not anyone's rhetoric sparked the shooting, there are people who still need to stop using rhetoric that can incite trouble. We don't need anymore incidents like this, our political environment is out of control and it needs to be pulled back into stability.

And who is supposed to determine which of these "people" must cease exercising their First Amendment right to free political speech?

Ever heard of self-moderation? It's not that hard and some people need to practice it.

[cinyc]

Again, the very point of all of this is very easy to understand. Rather or not anyone's rhetoric sparked the shooting, there are people who still need to stop using rhetoric that can incite trouble. We don't need anymore incidents like this, our political environment is out of control and it needs to be pulled back into stability.

And who is supposed to determine which of these "people" must cease exercising their First Amendment right to free political speech?

Ever heard of self-moderation? It's not that hard and some people need to practice it.

Who are these people who need to practice self-moderation, and why are they undoubtedly on the other side of the political aisle from you?  And what do you propose to do to those who do not self-moderate to your standards?  After all, you say they NEED to practice it - even though there is absolutely zero evidence that supposedly heightened political rhetoric had anything to do with the Arizona shooting.

[Хahar 🤔]

Though there is absolutely zero evidence that supposedly heightened political rhetoric had anything to do with the Arizona shooting.

That does not matter. What is important is the fetishization of violence in American political culture—specifically, a certain part of American political culture. It matters that this, while as ever a lamentable tragedy, is not shocking, for the first time in decades, precisely because of said fetishization.

That which is sown is also reaped.

[opebo]

This thread makes me cry inside.
I'm not denying that there may have been a political motive, but the attitudes displayed by some posters in this thread is just disgusting.
Anyone who would use an event of violence like this to promote a political viewpoint is pathetic.

Don't worry, according to my understanding of the new c********p policies, and the infraction points I incurred in this thread before that understanding, most posters who have expressed the points of view with which you disagree are headed for banning or 'muting'.  I for one will no longer express any such opinions.

I can't really think of anything to say about the shooting or any other related events, but I just wanted to comment on your concern.

No one is saying he was a teabagger brownshirt.

I don't think it would be allowed to say anything like that, and I would like to remind posters who might hold such views that it is inadvisable to express same.  I'm not clear on whether it would be OK to say "He was NOT a 'tea party' brown shirt" as it might be construed as sarcasm.  Can any right-leaning posters give us feedback on that?  In fact I wouldn't use the word 'brownshirt' at all under any circumstances (except perhaps in the 'what are you wearing today' thread), and I'm not so sure about the term 'tea party' either (clearly 'tea b****r' is not allowed, I think).

I'm only bringing this up because I think many posters who I may personally like or enjoy are endangering themselves in posting their opinions in this thread.

[patrick1]

^Hey Opebo, you do realize that the thread you posted in about the new laws is over one year old right? This is not exactly a "new" policy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

BTW, here is another insane guy who shot a politician. Hatred campaigns clearly have no influence on political assassinations.

It doesn't exactly help that most of the European press is pretty strongly biased in favor of the Democrats (well...Obama primarily...Europe still loves him).

It almost seems like they try their best to present Republicans and the Tea Party as legitimately evil. (And before you say "well, that's true", that's an opinion to which anyone is entitled, consider that it absolutely isn't neutral reporting.)

No. The American press is biased in favor of Republicans. The European press, while simplistic as it is each time it comes to foreign news, presents the standard vision that would prevail in any normal country.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If the political ramifications of this assassination attempt is too much for some members' sensibilities, then how about that for a change in our conversation?

Can somebody explain to me how is it possible in a civilized society for a guy that was just suspended from his college for mental health problems, to purchase a semi-automatic weapon with such ease?
How can a no-brainer like keeping guns out of the hands of the insane is considered an "unprecedented attack on liberty"?
 

[Frink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZO.html


Probably something certain people in this thread should read up on.

[minionofmidas]

BTW, here is another insane guy who shot a politician. Hatred campaigns clearly have no influence on political assassinations.

It doesn't exactly help that most of the European press is pretty strongly biased in favor of the Democrats (well...Obama primarily...Europe still loves him).

It almost seems like they try their best to present Republicans and the Tea Party as legitimately evil. (And before you say "well, that's true", that's an opinion to which anyone is entitled, consider that it absolutely isn't neutral reporting.)

No. The American press is biased in favor of Republicans. The European press, while simplistic as it is each time it comes to foreign news, presents the standard vision that would prevail in any normal country.

No contradiction
Although seriously, it's just that journos are as utterly bewildered as anybody else over here as to how that Tea Party crap can be considered mainstream in a civilised country.

[Franzl]

It's not just about the Tea Party. If you (Antonio and Lewis) can't detect how disgustingly biased in favor of Obama the European press is. Just think about the reporting surrounding the 2008 or 2010 elections...

Normal news sources say stuff like..."Republicans won the House because Obama wasn't able to deliver on his promises fast enough (and only because of Republican opposition of course).

You can't honestly claim the reporting here isn't designed to create an Obama fan chorus.

[Franzl]

Very seldom did I ever hear anything about the practical problems of Obama legislation.

Take the health program (which I support given no alternative...but it's still irresponsible.) The only thing the European press bothers to tell people is that it gives so and so many million people insurance. Nothing about structural flaws. Nothing about it's complete lack of cost control. And so on.

I've never seen any reporting about what real problems Obama's legislation has...the press is just like a fan group, cheering for anything they can get.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's not just about the Tea Party. If you (Antonio and Lewis) can't detect how disgustingly biased in favor of Obama the European press is. Just think about the reporting surrounding the 2008 or 2010 elections...

Normal news sources say stuff like..."Republicans won the House because Obama wasn't able to deliver on his promises fast enough (and only because of Republican opposition of course).

You can't honestly claim the reporting here isn't designed to create an Obama fan chorus.

When the Republicans spend all these years ridiculing and demonizing everything that has to do with France and Europe in general, you can't seriously expect them to be treated neutrally.

And during the Bush years the US was seen here as more of a threat against world peace than any other nation or organization in the world.  

[Insula Dei]

It's not just about the Tea Party. If you (Antonio and Lewis) can't detect how disgustingly biased in favor of Obama the European press is. Just think about the reporting surrounding the 2008 or 2010 elections...

Normal news sources say stuff like..."Republicans won the House because Obama wasn't able to deliver on his promises fast enough (and only because of Republican opposition of course).

You can't honestly claim the reporting here isn't designed to create an Obama fan chorus.

When the Republicans spend all these years ridiculing and demonizing everything that has to do with France and Europe in general, you can't seriously expect them to be treated neutrally.

And during the Bush years the US was seen here as more of a threat against world peace than any other nation or organization in the world. 

Bush's "axis of evil" was universallly received as too camp and childish to be even remotely unironical. If I could count the number of people saying to me that the US itself belonged in the 'Axis of Evil', I'd be very good at counting. And at the time I lived in one of the more conservative cities in one of Western Europe's most conservative regions. The Rumsfeld qoute about 'the Old Europe' also didn't go down well. I think there still is a clearcut majority for trying Bush as a war criminal here in Flanders.

[Franzl]

Ah, so you admit the bias?

The Republicans are a political party, and therefore by definition not meant to present things neutrally. The press is allowed to fire back, though, in your opinion?

And you're probably right about Europe's feelings towards Bush (which I might add are crazy...but that's not the debate), but is public opinion an excuse for biased reporting?

In addition, how many people came to these views BECAUSE of the way the press presented things?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ah, so you admit the bias?

The Republicans are a political party, and therefore by definition not meant to present things neutrally. The press is allowed to fire back, though, in your opinion?

And you're probably right about Europe's feelings towards Bush (which I might add are crazy...but that's not the debate), but is public opinion an excuse for biased reporting?

In addition, how many people came to these views BECAUSE of the way the press presented things?

People didn't like Bush from the beginning, even though his isolationist rhetoric was well received after the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia. We have very different political systems here and when somebody wins the Presidency even though he lost the popular vote, it was seen as unfair and Bush himself as a cheater.

Then came the Iraq War which was almost unanimously seen as pure American aggression. There was no need for the press to present unfavorably Bush. If anything, public opinion influenced the mass media and made them more anti-American and anti-Republican.     

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very seldom did I ever hear anything about the practical problems of Obama legislation.

Take the health program (which I support given no alternative...but it's still irresponsible.) The only thing the European press bothers to tell people is that it gives so and so many million people insurance. Nothing about structural flaws. Nothing about it's complete lack of cost control. And so on.

I've never seen any reporting about what real problems Obama's legislation has...the press is just like a fan group, cheering for anything they can get.

So in your opinion people voted for republicans because of the health care bill's structural flaws ?

[afleitch]

Very seldom did I ever hear anything about the practical problems of Obama legislation.

Take the health program (which I support given no alternative...but it's still irresponsible.) The only thing the European press bothers to tell people is that it gives so and so many million people insurance. Nothing about structural flaws. Nothing about it's complete lack of cost control. And so on.

I've never seen any reporting about what real problems Obama's legislation has...the press is just like a fan group, cheering for anything they can get.

I don't know what press you were reading; the 'structural flaws' were discussed on the BBC, in the Telegraph, Guardian etc which I followed closely. They were reasoned discussions too. The impact of his presidency has also been explored in many media outlets and not always favourably; (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/crossingamerica/) Your recent sweeping comments on this page seem to be uncharacteristic of you.

On a wider note Franzl, remember that universal health care or at least accessable health insurance has been an ingrained part of western society in most nations since the war; to such an extent that it creates a broad political concensus across left and right in most countries. I would not therefore have expected the press or the wider public in Europe to take Obama to task for trying to introduce what most people in Europe would agree is a 'better' system than the one it replaced.

[Franzl]

No, but people (myself included) did not vote for the Republicans because Obama didn't deliver on his promises. We voted for Republicans for various reasons. Many because Republucans were able to convince them that Obama's program was bad/socialist/reckless....others (like in my case) simply to keep Democratic spending under control by voting for a stalemate. I wouldn't want total Republucan control (yet), but divided government as in the 90s might work relatively well.

The point is that the European press acts like nobody could possibly have anything against Obama's agenda, so it just MUST be because people were tired of waiting. And I resent the implication that I can't be reasonable and vote against his government.

[Franzl]

I don't know what press you were reading; the 'structural flaws' were discussed on the BBC, in the Telegraph, Guardian etc which I followed closely.

On a wider note Franzl, remember that universal health care or at least accessable health insurance has been an ingrained part of western society in most nations since the war; to such an extent that it creates a broad political concensus across left and right in most countries. I would not therefore have expected the press or the wider public in Europe to take Obama to task for trying to introduce what most people in Europe would agree is a 'better' system than the one it replaced.

I admit I can't comment much on the British press...my only experience is in Germany really, and I certainly didn't see such reasoned discussions here. It was just: health insurance = good...only evil people could oppose that!

Now, you're right that universal healthcare is universally accepted in Europe...and therefore it's likely that most people would support the concept...no contradiction from me there (I mean, I support it too...not single payer, but insurance based systems like in Germany or the Netherlands).

My argument isn't only about healthcare, though. I always get the feeling (in Germany at least) that Obama just can't be wrong (on domestic policy). He wants to help people, after all! If you oppose his agenda, then you must be an evil poor hating Republican!

[minionofmidas]

It's not just about the Tea Party. If you (Antonio and Lewis) can't detect how disgustingly biased in favor of Obama the European press is. Just think about the reporting surrounding the 2008 or 2010 elections...

Not sure about "disgustingly"... but yes, yes it is biased. I think I implied that much in my previous post, actually.
Obama's such a breath of fresh air compared to the disaster area that went before, and Tea Party rhetoric is so, well, outlandish to anybody not raised on certain strange American traditions, that journos (who're people too) throw their training to the wind a bit. Same thing happened in 1995 - back then they got back to their normal lap-up-whatever-the-powers-that-be modus quickly enough.

[afleitch]

My argument isn't only about healthcare, though. I always get the feeling (in Germany at least) that Obama just can't be wrong (on domestic policy). He wants to help people, after all! If you oppose his agenda, then you must be an evil poor hating Republican!

Much of that attitude probably stems from the opposition to Obama that makes itself heard the loudest in the United States...and they are not moderate Republicans by any means.

There are many policies enacted (or not enacted...) by the Obama administration that jar with me too. But there comes a time (and alot of European conservatives seem to agree) that you cannot support the direction that a national conservative party takes (see Tories 1997-2003) because it has abandoned ideals, principles and sometimes reason in pursuit of a fantasy. It means that legitimate opposition from moderates and even Democrats to his agenda gets lost in the fog of dogwhistles and barnstorming and crocodile tears of a populist mob. That is what is seen so that is what is reported.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, I know. It's that damn Jew socialist from New York, so feel free to dismiss him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.

It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary. And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?

If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Looks like it will took a whole months before she'd be able to return to work.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_he_me/us_med_congresswoman_brain_injury

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

^Hey Opebo, you do realize that the thread you posted in about the new laws is over one year old right? This is not exactly a "new" policy.

No, but infracting the sh**t out of him in this thread because of whiners is.