View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot.
Theory_Execution
I have read through this thread, leaving time for it to develop, and now that it has ripened into a Dem vs Rep bash I thought I would jump in.

I find it disgusting that America is split into a two party system, but more so that the intelligent people of this website would align themselves with either side.

You can have a preference for the lesser evils of one, but why do you at all consider yourselves Republicans and Democrats?

What you should be saying is that politicians as a whole have created a system in which violent rhetoric will inevitably breed, a flawed dichotomy that rips the arsehole out of considered governance.

Don't get me wrong, the UK isnt doing much better with its politicians and their blatant lying - but please people think about what you are saying - no population can be split into two, perfectly on every political question - it is just not possible.

A better, more civil approach to government would be for those wishing to hold office to complete a questionnaire on relevant polled issues of that time. This questionnaire should be supported by the evidence that has led them to their position. If no evidence exists, and the logic is flawed - they are forbidden from office until such a time as they can demonstrate reason.

Also, the answers should form the basis of their governing, if they change their mind (happen on new evidence) TV/radio/tinterwebs should give airtime to them voicing why this is so.

A pipe dream it may be, due to that overwhelming potential barrier that is the unwillingness for change, but it sure as hell would work a lot better than now.

For instance, if you win your campaign now (4 year term is it) on the promise that you will keep taxes the same, and then when in office you raise or lower them, you have cheated voters out of their vote.

In retail, this is called false advertising, and law suits follow. In government this is called politics and a middle finger to the public follows.
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

If there is any grasping going on, it's from you and your kind trying to make the illogical seem reasonable. This is exactly about ice cream sales vs. drownings. That's your problem, you fail to see your logical failure.

I can provide tit-for-tat leftwingnut violent spouting but it still won't make a causation between violent speech and violent action.

seeker, man up and concede; I'll respect you for it. There is no causal relationship between violent speech and violent actions as applied to the subject at hand and you can't make your case under any circumstance.


ROFL, you just keep digging yourself in deeper don't you. Now I need to school you on correlation versus causation.

The fact is that in statistics it is a given that there is no such thing as an absolute correlation but correlations are ranked by probability. Where you 'logic' fails you is in the fact that a correlation between calls for violence and specific violence related to those calls is going to carry an extremely high probability. Its a lot more like a kid showing up for dinner after his mother shouts 'dinner' out the window. We don't know for sure the kid heard his mother without interviewing him but the probability is very high that the two incidents are related.

Your big problem is that you can't provide a list of left-wing calls for violence from public officials and the only thing you can do is try and hide behind the weak bravado of your post. I did get a kick out of your attempt to cover your embarrassing showing in this discussion by calling for a concession. It reminded me somewhat of the Black Night in Monty Python's Holy Grail http://www.youtub...eMkth8FWno
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
seeker
Theory_Execution wrote:
I have read through this thread, leaving time for it to develop, and now that it has ripened into a Dem vs Rep bash I thought I would jump in.

I find it disgusting that America is split into a two party system, but more so that the intelligent people of this website would align themselves with either side.

You can have a preference for the lesser evils of one, but why do you at all consider yourselves Republicans and Democrats?

What you should be saying is that politicians as a whole have created a system in which violent rhetoric will inevitably breed, a flawed dichotomy that rips the arsehole out of considered governance.

Don't get me wrong, the UK isnt doing much better with its politicians and their blatant lying - but please people think about what you are saying - no population can be split into two, perfectly on every political question - it is just not possible.

A better, more civil approach to government would be for those wishing to hold office to complete a questionnaire on relevant polled issues of that time. This questionnaire should be supported by the evidence that has led them to their position. If no evidence exists, and the logic is flawed - they are forbidden from office until such a time as they can demonstrate reason.

Also, the answers should form the basis of their governing, if they change their mind (happen on new evidence) TV/radio/tinterwebs should give airtime to them voicing why this is so.

A pipe dream it may be, due to that overwhelming potential barrier that is the unwillingness for change, but it sure as hell would work a lot better than now.

For instance, if you win your campaign now (4 year term is it) on the promise that you will keep taxes the same, and then when in office you raise or lower them, you have cheated voters out of their vote.

In retail, this is called false advertising, and law suits follow. In government this is called politics and a middle finger to the public follows.


The fact is that people here in the US have always just been picking between the lesser of two evils. Democrats, for the moment, are the lesser of the two evils in this country but that hasn't always been, nor will it always be, the case. The fact is that whoever gets into power will end up being seduced by the massive amounts of money and power that business can offer them.

In general the real problem here in the US is conservatism. Most people are shaky when it comes to change so conservatives can talk about maintaining a status quo or even going back to a former era and expect agreement. Where that becomes problematic is that progress requires change and a willingness to look objectively at the mistakes of the past. The systems that were put in place in the late 18th century simply never anticipated the kinds of influence that private businesses would be able to bandy about. The natural tendency to avoid change conflicts with the need to adapt to changing political dynamics.

I'm not all that concerned about some broken political promises. Things change and politicians have to be flexible enough to adapt. Its really how they change that is worrisome. A politician who gets into office by promising to end oil dependence only to increase our dependence on oil companies is far more troubling in my mind than a politician who sees that revenues are out of line with spending and raises taxes.
Edited by seeker on 01/13/2011 14:25
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Theory_Execution
I would scrap the whole thing and start again.
 
seeker
The problem is that as soon as a few people get a little bit of power they usually distort whatever political system they are in so they can get more power.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker wrote:

"Your big problem is that you can't provide a list of left-wing calls for violence from public officials and the only thing you can do is try and hide behind the weak bravado of your post. I did get a kick out of your attempt to cover your embarrassing showing in this discussion by calling for a concession. It reminded me somewhat of the Black Night in Monty Python's Holy Grail http://www.youtub...eMkth8FWno
"

I can't? How about 27 of them? From my first Google search even. I'm not even trying:

http://bearwitnes...LENCE.aspx

Geesh.

seeker, I answered you challenge, now if you don't mind please answer this question. Does your beloved liberal president, Barak Obama, agree with you or me on this issue?
Edited by Kowboy on 01/13/2011 18:11
 
Kowboy
seeker:

Can we agree that context is everything?

If so, then you've got a big distortion problem with the video you posted regarding Ms. Bachmann:

"As John Hinderaker at Power Line shows, complete with a recording of the entire interview, Michelle Bachmann was merely using a metaphor. She was holding a town hall meeting with constituents regarding the cap-and-trade bill and said, Im going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back. She was arming them with information, not bullets, so they could successfully oppose a terrible bill, not shoot politicians."

So lefties like yourself feel that arming citizens with information is dangerous. Of course you do. Lefties believe they are smarter than everyone else and know what's best for everyone else. You wouldn't want people to have information that wasn't spoon-fed by the left. I don't feel like that. Throw it all out there unvarnished and let the people sort it out.

To deliberately mischaracterize Bachmann's remarks shows just how desperate the left in this country has become. Shameful. No, I take that back, more than shameful, pitiful.

As for her other remark regarding revolution, I agree with her completely. However, I'm in excellent company with the right-wing-Tea-Party-nutcase violence advocate and founding father, Thomas Jefferson:

http://bartleby.c.../1065.html
Edited by Kowboy on 01/13/2011 18:35
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker wrote:

"Your big problem is that you can't provide a list of left-wing calls for violence from public officials and the only thing you can do is try and hide behind the weak bravado of your post. I did get a kick out of your attempt to cover your embarrassing showing in this discussion by calling for a concession. It reminded me somewhat of the Black Night in Monty Python's Holy Grail http://www.youtub...eMkth8FWno



I can't? How about 27 of them? From my first Google search even. I'm not even trying:

http://bearwitnes...LENCE.aspx


LOL, you completely missed the boat. Not one of your examples is a democratic politician advocating violence. I realize you are just trying to pretend that your evidence is similar but its not even close. Let's be sure to understand here, the difference we are talking about is Republican Senators and Representatives calling for violence while you simply don't have that from Democrats.

Kowboy wrote:Geesh.

seeker, I answered you challenge, now if you don't mind please answer this question. Does your beloved liberal president, Barak Obama, agree with you or me on this issue?


Actually you failed to answer the challenge as I showed above. As to Obama's statement you seem to be unable to separate the President's attempt to placate the right with agreement. Obama never said that he thinks that right-wing rhetoric played no role at all, only that this is a time to try to tone down the discussion.

You, as is typical of the right, conveniently seem to have forgotten this report (note the full report is at the bottom of the article).

Kowboy wrote:Can we agree that context is everything?

If so, then you've got a big distortion problem with the video you posted regarding Ms. Bachmann:

"As John Hinderaker at Power Line shows, complete with a recording of the entire interview, Michelle Bachmann was merely using a metaphor. She was holding a town hall meeting with constituents regarding the cap-and-trade bill and said, Im going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back. She was arming them with information, not bullets, so they could successfully oppose a terrible bill, not shoot politicians."

So lefties like yourself feel that arming citizens with information is dangerous. Of course you do. Lefties believe they are smarter than everyone else and know what's best for everyone else. You wouldn't want people to have information that wasn't spoon-fed by the left. I don't feel like that. Throw it all out there unvarnished and let the people sort it out.

To deliberately mischaracterize Bachmann's remarks shows just how desperate the left in this country has become. Shameful. No, I take that back, more than shameful, pitiful.

As for her other remark regarding revolution, I agree with her completely. However, I'm in excellent company with the right-wing-Tea-Party-nutcase violence advocate and founding father, Thomas Jefferson:

http://bartleby.c...


ROFL, I've heard of trying to put lipstick on a pig but you've put the pig in high heels and a Christian Dior gown. Sure you can try to parse this away but the entire statement is here and while she does mention information she doesn't actually tie together the notion of 'armed and dangerous' with information. In fact she goes out of her way to claim that we'll 'lose our country' unless we are prepared to 'fight'. Sorry kowboy but I've heard better apologetic from Catholics.
Edited by seeker on 01/13/2011 19:21
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
JohnH
"If they bring a knife to the fight we bring a gun". "Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl". "I have seen Eagles fans". Statements from Barak Obama in a fund raising speech in Philadelphia during the campaign.

A side comment. I was at a Giants game early last season against the Phillies. There were some Phillie fans behind me who asked me questions during the course of the game because I keep score. Late in the game the Phillies made a comeback to win and these fans went a little nuts. I turned to them at one point and asked if I could get away with that in Philadelphia, they gave me a look like are you crazy and said "no". Those of you, like me, who are football fans know that the reference to Eagles fans is no joke. Well, it was a joke when made but it is different when a politician makes a joke like that and when I might.

I will not draw any equivalency between any of these comments and those made by republican politicians but they are somewhat violent in nature. I also accept that there is much evidence that republican adherents have acted out more violently than democratic adherents. For example Giffords campaign office was smashed up during the campaign.

Seeker, you should be careful because there are examples of democratic politicians making inappropriate comments. Not as many or necessarily as violent as the republicans but they do exist.

kowboy, you ignored my specific examples of where right wing rhetoric led to violence. I will agree that nothing in this specific case has been proved yet. We should both wait to find out.

TE, I have voted for major party candidates maybe 5 times in my voting life of 40+ years. I believe that Bob of QF describes himself as a libertarian. There are americans who agree that the two party system sucks. It is that we are marginalized by the political and media system and have little voice. I am not sure that your proposal is the correct one but representing more views than the extreme right of center and slightly right of center is required for the US to be a representative republic.

edit, my apologies for repeating the Obama quote which was already out there.
Edited by JohnH on 01/14/2011 01:31
 
Bob of QF
Hear, hear JohnH--

The current climate of right and ultra-right (In the USA) leaves no room for any other points of view.

The continuing polarizing politics is not helping anyone, except to keep (and get) ever-more corrupt political hacks, who not so much represent people, as represent their own ability to get large payouts from the corporate sector...

We need campaign finance reform, blocking any and all cash payouts from any corporation of any flavor.

Furthermore, we need to dismantle and stop all professional lobbyists.

Yeah, right... like >>that<< is ever going to happen...

... so long as there is large piles of cash to be made, and large tax-cuts for the rich and the corporations to be given out?

It'll never happen...
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JohnH
Bob of QF, it is sad how correct you are about the simplest ways to reform governance in this country and how unlikely they are to happen. I must also suggest that the bulk of the american people get the governance they deserve. If one does not pay attention one often does deserve what one gets.
 
Theory_Execution
Until such a time as a candidate appears who has some informed comments about the world, I will be voting as akin to the election campaign of Bruster's Millions - none of the above.

The only politician of the UK that I can say I hold in high regard (and he wasn't even in office in my lifetime) is Tony Benn.
 
seeker
JohnH wrote:


Seeker, you should be careful because there are examples of democratic politicians making inappropriate comments. Not as many or necessarily as violent as the republicans but they do exist.



The reason I'm not as troubled by the democratic comments is because they aren't coupled with the kinds of demonization characteristic of republican comments. Republicans are playing at using violent rhetoric while specifically branding their opponents as a sort of invading force taking over the country.

Bachman's comments are a great example, she presents government as tyrannical and then presses the notion that people must rebel and fight or lose the country. While she may only mean a rhetorical fight that is not the clear message of her speech.

Even the comments you attributed to Obama illustrate my point. They aren't specifically directed nor does Obama ever designate Republicans as enemies of the state or a force that must be destroyed.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker:

I tried to find some examples of elected Democrats threatening Republicans but didn't have any luck. Then I tried to find some examples of elected Republicans threatening Democrats and surprise, surprise, had no luck with that either.

Then I realized that even if I did find examples of elected Democrats threatening Republicans you would just reinterpret their remarks to take them off the hook so it was pointless to do so.

There has been enough rhetoric from all sides to go around. It's like claiming one party or another is more virtuous or honest than the other.

You've been completely unsuccessful in attempting to blame Republicans/conservatives for the Arizona murders. You've proven nothing except the desperation of liberals.
 
Kowboy
i136.photobucket.com/albums/q186/Trebruchet/McKee1_C20110113.jpg
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

I tried to find some examples of elected Democrats threatening Republicans but didn't have any luck. Then I tried to find some examples of elected Republicans threatening Democrats and surprise, surprise, had no luck with that either.

Then I realized that even if I did find examples of elected Democrats threatening Republicans you would just reinterpret their remarks to take them off the hook so it was pointless to do so.

There has been enough rhetoric from all sides to go around. It's like claiming one party or another is more virtuous or honest than the other.

You've been completely unsuccessful in attempting to blame Republicans/conservatives for the Arizona murders. You've proven nothing except the desperation of liberals.



I've proven my point, you just have trouble dealing with the fact that your heroes have conned you. As to finding examples of Republican calls for violence against Democrats that is real easy:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Fresno City Council Member Jerry Duncan in 2003 wrote in an email that police should "Cap" members of the Human Relations Commission and wrote, "If I had one dirty bomb and I could eliminate all the liberals in Fresno at once." When his comments became public, Duncan said "The response I have gotten from the public on this has been 100% supportive."

And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. -- Rep. Peter King

Let's not forget this

Then there are incidents like these:

Robert Lowry, a Republican challenger to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event in October. The event was at a gun range, and Lowry shot at a human-shaped target that had Wasserman Schulz's initials written next to it. He later said it was a "mistake."

Wasserman Schulz, who defeated Lowry, remembered that incident on Hardball Monday evening.

"Those kinds of actions, words and statements can lead people who are unbalanced to potentially engage and carry out that violence," she said. "It's out of line and we've got to dial it back."


Note that Lowry even admits that people might take his action as advocating violence

Giffords' own opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, had a gun-themed fund-raiser in June in which supporters could come and shoot an M-16 rifle with Kelly. It was promoted thusly: Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

Stephen Broden, a Republican challenger to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), in late October said that violent revolution is "on the table."

"We have a constitutional remedy here and the Framers says if that don't work, revolution," he said. "If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary."

"Our nation was founded on violence," Broden said. He lost the race.

Rick Barber (R-AL) drew attention to his Congressional campaign with a TV ad in which he and "the Founding Fathers" discussed the current tax code. At the end of the ad, in which the cameras zoom in on colonial-era pistols several times, one of the Founders says, "Gather your armies." He also lost his primary.

Richard Behney, a tea partier from Indiana running for former Sen. Evan Bayh's seat, told a group of Second Amendment activists that they didn't have to resort to armed insurrection -- "yet."

"We can get new faces in. Whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote," he said.

Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) found herself in June defending comments she had made six months earlier about the Second Amendment.

"People are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out," she said.


I have a lot more if you still can't find any.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
Seeker:

Well, it just goes to show, if you mix ignorance and an average low IQ with tools of violence?

You get violence.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
Bob - That is basically the Republican platform. They simply keep people so stirred up that nothing gets done then profit off of the resulting panic.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
I'm not 100% sure it's the strict rethuglican platform.

But I'd take no bets claiming it wasn't the Faux News central platform...

.. and these days? There is not much (if anything) to separate the two, is there?
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Kowboy
seeker:

Please, what point have you proven? I'm not getting it. Please make it easy for me to understand. Something like "I've made the point that xxxxxx, and I've proven it by yyyyyy."

Thanks.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-Immigration Arizona Law Backfires U.S. Politics 4 05/23/2010 16:23
Arizona Immigration Bill U.S. Politics 14 05/12/2010 14:39
Arizona Sweat Lodge Deaths Other religions, sects and cults 6 10/24/2009 15:31