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

[Brittain33]

And what is with so many people here turning a very tragic event into "omgz teabaggers! bla bla bla 2nd amendment! bla bla!" hackfest? This thread is about Giffords and the others who lost their lives, not about Palin and others being idiots, seriously STFU already.

The Sheriff of Pima County spoke several times about vitriol from radio talk show hosts and general political discourse and how absolutely destructive it is in his press conference.

[Brittain33]

Setting aside the merits of the argument here--and I actually do think Palin's crosshairs graphic, while bad, is not in the same league as rhetoric about "Second Amendment remedies" (Angle), greet Dems by being "armed and dangerous" (Bachmann), or the very many lesser lights calling of armed resistance to the government to protect our liberty against Obama's unprecedented assault--the appearance to me is that Palin's crosshairs graphic does freak out people in the middle who won't be impressed by someone digging up a dartboard analogy or parsing whether this obviously insane shooter would have supported the cap and trade bill or not. The rhetoric of the last two years, voiced by maybe 1% of elected Republicans and many more activists and media stars, has shifted from talking about violence in a metaphorical way to a literal way, and people will make the connection. Protesting with straw men (looking at you, JBrase) or debating why the Dems are exactly the same as Republicans in preaching violence is not particularly relevant. I sympathize with Republicans who don't favor assassination and who, up until now, thought the rhetoric was harmless and maybe helped the cause, but don't want to see it happen.

[Brittain33]

I do think it matter that Palin, unlike others, never called for violence against the government or elected officials. She blithely joked about it and played up her affection for shooting, and it makes a lot of people queasy, but we must distinguish between her, well, vulgarity about guns and the people who've actually spoken about the potential for watering the tree of liberty with blood etc.

[Brittain33]

silencing of opinions of other people with certain political views

If you can't express your opinion without calling for the assassination of public officials, and feel silenced if you can't demand that people kill elected officials because you didn't vote for them, you should try harder or maybe think a little more. I don't feel particularly Stalinist for espousing that view. It's generally the most incompetent Republicans who have to resort to calling for "second amendment remedies," the vast majority of them don't have to stoop that low. I would counter that people who are looking at this very narrow point we are making about calling for assassinations and complaining about "silencing" are trying to make an unsupported political point of their own. Meanwhile, a representative lies bleeding in a coma in the hospital. That is a big deal.

[Brittain33]

Democracy can not survive if people resort to physical violence when they lose at the ballot box.

[Brittain33]

Democracy can not survive if people resort to physical violence when they lose at the ballot box.

Of course not. Hardly anyone would dispute that, though....and the tragic shooting of Giffords certainly wasn't a case of that.

Stop that. It isn't right to interrupt their Palin/Tea Party bashing during this tragedy.

Phil, you're better than this.

If you don't understand what I mean, go read what I actually said about Palin in this thread and then say it again.

[Brittain33]

Who are these people who need to practice self-moderation

They are people who advocate the assassination of elected officials as a solution for policy disputes. I don't care what their policy views are. This is a ground game rule of democracy. It is the action of saying "shoot people who don't pass laws we like", not the content of the laws or the identity of the speaker.

Do you believe that expressing this view is an integral part of a certain set of policy views? I sure as hell don't. I think it's a tactic used by a few careless people and it does no political perspective any harm to self-moderate and choose not to use it. The same way it is good to self-moderate and not to give out the home addresses of Goldman Sachs executives and tell people it would be nice if they went out there "armed and dangerous" and sought "second amendment remedies" to the harm those rich bastards have done to the ordinary American. See, it works both ways.

Cinyc, phil, jbrase, how would you feel if Obama, Dick Blumenthal, etc. were going on national tv and saying "This is Lloyd Blankfein's house. 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut. Mr. Blankfein is blocking reforms we need to prevent Wall Street from stealing your money. Now, I would never hurt him myself, but maybe it would be good for the country if people went out there and showed him exactly why he should work with us instead of against us..."

[Brittain33]

Cinyc,

I've made my point several times now. You can keep redefining the issue to say, well, they said we should shoot representatives, but they didn't actually say "go here at this time," and a Democrat said blah blah here, so it's not the same. I don't care, I think telling people to go shoot representatives if they don't like how they vote is unacceptable, and wherever you move the goalposts to after that is irrelevant. Whatever changes you want to make to that has nothing to do with me. The cinycs and keystone phils of the world don't necessarily have to agree with this view. Note that I am not in a position to pass laws to mandate what I think should happen, I am just one voice in a large number saying this right now in the wake of the attempted assassination. I am saying what I think. You haven't yet presented an argument as to why it's a good thing for elected officials and candidates for high office to choose to "go there" and call for assassinations. That's my challenge to you because all I am asking is that they make the prudent choice not to go there.

Jefferson advocated a revolution every generation. He was also a slaveholder. He was wrong about some things and right about others, like all the other Founders. I'm guessing you don't care for his line about the wall of separation of church and state as a mandate for our current government, do you? I don't believe that Jefferson's words were divinely inspired and God gave us (if you believe in God) the reason to discuss issues as they play out today while drawing on the wisdom of the past. I think the public reaction to Giffords' assassination by all but a few political activists and internet jerkoffs (I put myself in that category sometimes, too) shows where the country stands on "watering the tree of liberty with blood."

[Brittain33]

Why is it a good thing for candidates to call for assassinations?  Again, no major party candidate that I know have called for assassinations of specific individuals.

It doesn't have to be specific individuals to be dangerous. Naming the Democratic members of Congress as people to be shot reduces it to a few hundred, of which only a few will be convenient to a given shooter. Not that it matters, the only reason you're saying "specific individuals" is so you can define some realm of bad behavior outside of what Republicans have done, not based on whether it's more or less dangerous. And if we find a Republican who said "we should kill Jane Goldberg because she voted [y]," and plenty of activists have done in the last two years as they've been riled up by their leaders, you'll just move the goal posts again.

I'm not here to convince you or keystone phil because neither of you is arguing in good faith or seeking an exchange of views. You're seeking maximum defense of your team, whether plausible or not, and will fight to the end for that. I'm here to think through my beliefs and express them in arguments, have them tested, explore what I think, and put forward the best conclusion I can. I know you well enough to know that at the end of the day, you're never going to acknowledge anything that causes potential disadvantage to your party and beliefs. That's fine! What you think and believe, doesn't matter to me. Truth and intellectual honesty do. To the extent that you engage with those topics or give me a chance to, I argue with you. But I don't really care if you choose to stay within your little fortress at the end of the day, any more than I care if CARLHAYDEN ever changes his views in response to posts responding to him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are individuals who are capable of expressing our own opinions. How would you feel if I said, in response to some thread about who would win NY-4, I said "it's up to the voters to decide"? That's not why we're here. Even outside the internet, in the real world, political discourse happens continuously with views expressed and mores shaped more than just once every two years when people vote. But...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This line of argument, half debunked straw-man ("banned"?), has already been countered several times in this thread. We have a dying or crippled congresswoman lying in a coma, a 9-year-old girl is dead. You translate this to "I don't think it's nice." Well, cinyc, whatever you want to believe, you're welcome to. I'm just very, very grateful that the majority in this country doesn't share your views about subordinating human lives and morality to a belief that you must defend whatever members of your party say and do, must be defended on the Internet with maximum sarcasm and refusal to acknowledge opposing views.

As far as the "Democrats do it," as I said well up in the thread, if I felt Democrats were causing any kind of violence or harm to people and advocating it, I'd condemn that in a second. Your need for false equivalence doesn't mean it happens, your weak examples don't hold up to anyone whose purpose isn't to drag out a tu quoque that no objective viewer would accept. Maybe you believe that Democrats are out there trying to kill Republicans. But the vast, vast imbalance in political violence over my lifetime is a mountain of proof all of your google searching can't defeat.

[Brittain33]

I did not quote Jefferson for the truth or falsity of his statement.  I quoted it to show, once again, that this supposed hateful rhetoric regarding the Second Amendment has been around for centuries.

Which Jefferson gave in 1787. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791

Also, in theory, we've learned from the experience of "Bleeding Kansas," the Civil War, KKK resistance to Reconstruction, etc. and have tried to move beyond that instead of holding them up as great American traditions.

[Brittain33]

I suppose so. I regret that the many times I've noted Democratic failures and inappropriate views (and not for being too liberal) haven't resonated with you, I certainly try my best to be a moderate hero. But I recognize that some things just aren't going to be visible when they aren't being looked for.

[Brittain33]

Cinyc, phil, jbrase, how would you feel if Obama, Dick Blumenthal, etc. were going on national tv and saying "This is Lloyd Blankfein's house. 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut. Mr. Blankfein is blocking reforms we need to prevent Wall Street from stealing your money. Now, I would never hurt him myself, but maybe it would be good for the country if people went out there and showed him exactly why he should work with us instead of against us..."

Oh, I wasn't aware that Palin and the others you despise and want to blame for this called on someone to be hurt.

Second time, Phil: go back and read what I wrote about Palin in this thread if you want to respond to me. Please.

[Brittain33]

This thread is over forty pages long. If you could, please quote it here.

To be brief, I said that Palin's rifle-sight target was not in the same league as the comments by Angle and Bachmann I keep quoting, not to mention lots of extreme stuff said by radio talk show hosts and various activists. Palin didn't outright call for assassinating officials, she just played fast and loose with rhetoric about guns. I am far more concerned about the former than the latter. I think the latter is dangerous, but it's harder to object to as clearly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was sincere in saying Kanjorski was wrong to say that. As far as being "extremely dangerous," I mock that because of many reasons people have spelled out here, and which can be hashed out on that thread.

[Brittain33]

Republicans are saying it's inappropriate at this time for politicians to talk about whether there are specific things it is inappropriate for politicians to talk about (or be "banned" from talking about.)

[Brittain33]

I certainly try my best to be a moderate hero.

"Moderate hero" is an insult.

Yeah, and I think sometimes I show signs of it.

[Brittain33]

By the way, if it becomes socially unacceptable for public figures to call for shooting their opponents, it's not going to be because left-wingers "banned" it or somehow used their mind-control rays on society to change things. It's going to be because a lot of people in the middle are going to make the connection themselves and oppose assassination rhetoric, whether or not some Republicans agree or think that is fair, and Republicans are going to make the decision not to go there in order to improve their own image and prevent themselves from having more failed candidacies like Angle's. Republicans aren't oblivious to this; it's why Bachmann was kept out of House leadership. They've been walking a fine line between harnessing this energy and keeping their own hands clean, but that's going to be less easy now that people outside of involved partisans are paying attention.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/gun_rhetoric_2010.php?ref=fpb

It's noteworthy how many of the people cited above who relied heavily on assassination rhetoric and "look how tough I am, look at my huuuuuuuuge gun, bam bam" nonsense lost their elections in 2010. They include Manchin as a token Democrat who ended up winning his race, although he did shoot at a piece of legislation, not a person.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47521.html#ixzz1AsRTkmK9

I don't think badly of him for this... the RNC leadership race is important and it's going on now. He doesn't need to be one more member of Obama's audience. There are much worse examples of fundraising he could have been doing.

[Brittain33]

Yeah, even my Republican friends on FB who were feeling angry and frustrated at the debate this week were praising Obama's speech. Glad to see it hit the right notes.

[Brittain33]

It's sick that you and particularly the guys at the Politico want to trump up this meme that a memorial service can change things for Obama.  It really shows what bad shape you guys are in if he's in desperate need of a massacre to bring his poll numbers up.

This is how the presidency works and the people in the middle think. (Obviously, partisan Republicans aren't going to vote for the guy just because he gave a good speech.) It's not a Dem thing or a Republican thing. It's why Congress will never have the upper hand.

To be clear, this is very far from being 9/11... but Republicans should be glad you won't have to endure what Democrats endured for years after that event, the way we were tarred and insulted by the party in power which claimed that they were the only ones who "got it," and eventually went so far as to blame the city that was actually struck for somehow not understanding the real meaning of 9/11, etc.

[Brittain33]

A very smart lady, Ms. Giffords is.

Holy crap. Wouldn't want to be Sarah Palin this month...