Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[punked]

Saying that the phrase has "no place in the American democracy" is saying that they shouldn't say it.

Again, the implication is no more heavy metal albums in case listeners could suicide themselves.

They shouldn't have said it I agree. I also think they have the right to say it and can say it. They can also stop pretending they didn't say it when something like this happens. She words of meaning and you have accept the meaning when someone points this out. It might interest you to know Palin scrubbed her twitter of the word "Bullseye" today when talking about those spots she placed on her map. Just saying if you say the words which have no place in American democracy they get to some blame when someone does what your words meant. Even if they never heard you say them.

You're not calling them an idiot, you're saying that the phrase shouldn't be said. That's akin to Christians saying that Muslim beliefs are incorrect... you're taking pot shots at the way another culture operates, assuming you're not an American Tea Partier...

Of course you have the freedom to say it, but you're wagging your figure at others: telling people how they should live, not coming up with an approach that we can all follow together.

I am saying that if you think that someone should take up arms when you lose an election then you are an idiot yes. You disagree you think if someone you don't like wins an election an appropriate response is to pick up a gun.

Again I am saying you have a right to say whatever you want. I have a right to respond what you say as well. I say you should be allowed to anytime of speech, and I should have a right to say that speech is wrong for an elected official to say.

Nothing wrong with that. I am not telling someone how to live I am speaking my opinion on what they think democracy is.

[Michael Hardner]

They shouldn't have said it I agree. I also think they have the right to say it and can say it. They can also stop pretending they didn't say it when something like this happens. She words of meaning and you have accept the meaning when someone points this out. It might interest you to know Palin scrubbed her twitter of the word "Bullseye" today when talking about those spots she placed on her map. Just saying if you say the words which have no place in American democracy they get to some blame when someone does what your words meant. Even if they never heard you say them.

So they have the right to say it... then we can drop their hamfisted attempt to manipulate the record... by that point the debate has taken enough turns as to not be productive.

I am saying that if you think that someone should take up arms when you lose an election then you are an idiot yes. You disagree you think if someone you don't like wins an election an appropriate response is to pick up a gun.

Who says this ?

Again I am saying you have a right to say whatever you want. I have a right to respond what you say as well. I say you should be allowed to anytime of speech, and I should have a right to say that speech is wrong for an elected official to say.

Nothing wrong with that. I am not telling someone how to live I am speaking my opinion on what they think democracy is.

Yeah, by telling someone what is appropriate speech, and that not being speech that you would use, you're telling others how to live. Kind of like missionaries telling people not to worship their local gods, I think.

[punked]

There have been no such "warnings." No one has warned that Americans will take up arms if people vote for the wrong person; there absolutely is no movement to "take up arms." And since this incident apparently has nothing to do with those words, it highlights nothing about said words. The two are unrelated. How can this incident highlight the danger of said words if there is no tie to them?

Here is a quote from Sharron Angle last election you might know her as she ran against Harry Reid as a Republican. She also campaigned with and was endorsed by many Republicans.

"If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

"You know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, 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."

[bloodyminded]

They shouldn't have said it I agree. I also think they have the right to say it and can say it. They can also stop pretending they didn't say it when something like this happens. She words of meaning and you have accept the meaning when someone points this out. It might interest you to know Palin scrubbed her twitter of the word "Bullseye" today when talking about those spots she placed on her map. Just saying if you say the words which have no place in American democracy they get to some blame when someone does what your words meant. Even if they never heard you say them.

I am saying that if you think that someone should take up arms when you lose an election then you are an idiot yes. You disagree you think if someone you don't like wins an election an appropriate response is to pick up a gun.

Again I am saying you have a right to say whatever you want. I have a right to respond what you say as well. I say you should be allowed to anytime of speech, and I should have a right to say that speech is wrong for an elected official to say.

Nothing wrong with that. I am not telling someone how to live I am speaking my opinion on what they think democracy is.

And to be fair to you, there are a lot of American voices saying just what you are saying; so it can't really be construed as "telling another culture what to do."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/09-0

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/09-1

http://www.thenation.com/blog/157578/palin-put-gun-target-giffords-district-now-colleague-says-palin-needs-look-her-own-behav

(Still, I'd reiterate that I don't consider Palin, personally, even slightly to blame.)

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[punked]

So they have the right to say it... then we can drop their hamfisted attempt to manipulate the record... by that point the debate has taken enough turns as to not be productive.

Who says this ?

Yeah, by telling someone what is appropriate speech, and that not being speech that you would use, you're telling others how to live. Kind of like missionaries telling people not to worship their local gods, I think.

You really don't get how free speech works do you? Everyone has the right to say what they want, their opinions, feelings, and ideas. I support this including telling those who encourage violence they have no place in a free country.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is a quote from Sharron Angle last election you might know her as she ran against Harry Reid as a Republican. She also campaigned with and was endorsed by many Republicans.

"If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

"You know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, 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."

That quote is not a "warning" by any means. It may be ignorant, red-neck, gun-slinging mentality, but it's not a "warning," and it's sure not evidence of any "movement."

[punked]

That quote is not a "warning" by any means. It may be ignorant, red-neck, gun-slinging mentality, but it's not a "warning," and it's sure not evidence of any "movement."

It has no place from a public official in a free country and this incident high lights why.

[Guest American Woman]

It has no place from a public official in a free country

That's an opinion, no more, no less.

....and this incident high lights why.

Again, an incident that has nothing to do with said words can't possibly highlight anything about them. If there is no connection, one has nothing to do with the other. If A has nothing to do with B, A can't highlight anything about B.

[punked]

That's an opinion, no more, no less.

It sure is, I don't remember saying it wasn't. It might be your opinion that type of speech is wonderful for democracy. Don't think it is.

Again, an incident that has nothing to do with said words can't possibly highlight anything about them. If there is no connection, one has nothing to do with the other. If A has nothing to do with B, A can't highlight anything about B.

You are using a faulty argument here. See what I am saying is "If A has nothing to do with B. B can still be related to A." This is something that is common in the world and a device that is used all the time.

[LonJowett]

So, someone who goes on a shooting rampage is mentally stable - oh sure I'll buy that one LOL

Obviously he is unstable. I don't know how you can make conclusions about his political ideology based on his reading list. The only conclusive proof we have of anything is that he agreed with Sharron Angle about "second amendment remedies."

[kimmy]

"If A has nothing to do with B. B can still be related to A."

Actually, that's not true when phrased that way. You need to rephrase that to convey what you actually mean.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

You really don't get how free speech works do you? Everyone has the right to say what they want, their opinions, feelings, and ideas. I support this including telling those who encourage violence they have no place in a free country.

You're putting your cultural values on them by saying they encourage violence. You're free to make that mistake, but it is a mistake.

And, again, you're evangelizing. I use that term on purpose because I have a sense that you have a distaste for such behavior when born-again Christians, for example, tell you what to do.

And, yes, hypocrisy is a constitutionally protected mode of self-expression.

[punked]

Actually, that's not true when phrased that way. You need to rephrase that to convey what you actually mean.

-k

I am saying you can look at an incident and saying what happened there is wrong. Then look at people who are advocating for things like "guns should be easy to get", "everyone should have a right to guns," and the kicker "if I don't win someone crazy might pick up a gun and shoot someone," and say yes those things aren't right for our way of life.

[Guest American Woman]

It sure is, I don't remember saying it wasn't. It might be your opinion that type of speech is wonderful for democracy. Don't think it is.

If you think that my opinion might be that that type of talk is wonderful for democracy, let me clarify that I don't think "ignorant, red-neck, gun-slinging mentality" is "good."

You are using a faulty argument here. See what I am saying is "If A has nothing to do with B. B can still be related to A." This is something that is common in the world and a device that is used all the time.

No, it's not.

[punked]

You're putting your cultural values on them by saying they encourage violence. You're free to make that mistake, but it is a mistake.

And, again, you're evangelizing. I use that term on purpose because I have a sense that you have a distaste for such behavior when born-again Christians, for example, tell you what to do.

And, yes, hypocrisy is a constitutionally protected mode of self-expression.

No I am adult born again Christan's can tell me all they want and I will ignore them. However if Born again Christan's start preaching about picking up arms and taking "gods will into their hands" while they have a right to say I have a right to say they wrong and should not speak those words in a free society.

People have a right say what ever they want and it is not hypocritical to say somethings people say are crazy. That is hypocritical in a free society.

[punked]

If you think that my opinion might be that that type of talk is wonderful for democracy, let me clarify that I don't think "ignorant, red-neck, gun-slinging mentality" is "good."

Great that is what I am saying. When someone actually does the hypothetical imagery these people talk about it is horrible but when they talk about it, it is AOK. I don't think so.

[bloodyminded]

You're putting your cultural values on them by saying they encourage violence. You're free to make that mistake, but it is a mistake.

And, again, you're evangelizing. I use that term on purpose because I have a sense that you have a distaste for such behavior when born-again Christians, for example, tell you what to do.

That's not so clear. America is not a unified "culture."

There are suddenly tons of American commentators expressing exactly the same opinions (exactly the same): so punk'd is really just agreeing with many Americans about their political culture.

[Michael Hardner]

People have a right say what ever they want and it is not hypocritical to say somethings people say are crazy. That is hypocritical in a free society.

I guess so, but it's incorrect to characterize metaphorical speech as actually encouraging violence without knowing the motivations of the speaker, and incorrect and inappropriate to suggest that metaphorical speech, however ugly, caused an act of violence, and it's hypocritical to criticize others for inappropriate speech when engaging in it.

Being incorrect, inappropriate, and hypocritical in one's speech is of course within one's right.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

That's not so clear. America is not a unified "culture."

Tea Party Culture seems to be unified... I think I have even read calls for TP unity from them.

There are suddenly tons of American commentators expressing exactly the same opinions (exactly the same): so punk'd is really just agreeing with many Americans about their political culture.

Those Americans are likely in the same boat as him. Nationality doesn't define culture, in every circumstance, and not in this one in particular. I could almost accept an Albertan gun-and-bible-type (and I use that caricature with the utmost of respect, seriously) expressing solidarity with Ms. Palin's crew on this one.

They're weird, they're not like me, but I can't believe that they want to kill me and my ilk.

[Guest American Woman]

Great that is what I am saying. When someone actually does the hypothetical imagery these people talk about it is horrible but when they talk about it, it is AOK. I don't think so.

First of all, if by "AOK" you mean they have the freedom of speech to say it, then yes, it is "AOK" to say it. Secondly, "imagery" and "actually doing something" are very different things; one is much more horrible than the other. One falls under free speech, no matter what one may think of it, and the other is against the law.

[punked]

I guess so, but it's incorrect to characterize metaphorical speech as actually encouraging violence without knowing the motivations of the speaker, and incorrect and inappropriate to suggest that metaphorical speech, however ugly, caused an act of violence, and it's hypocritical to criticize others for inappropriate speech when engaging in it.

Being incorrect, inappropriate, and hypocritical in one's speech is of course within one's right.

I am not saying it was the cause. I am saying the act of violence has pointed out this over the top speech is wrong when taken the extreme and in so those using those words have to accept the political fall out.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not saying it was the cause. I am saying the act of violence has pointed out this over the top speech is wrong when taken the extreme and in so those using those words have to accept the political fall out.

That's a disconnect.

The words weren't the cause of the events, so... those who use them have to accept the fall out... I guess meaning the fall out that their words are misinterpreted to have caused the event ?

That's a little twisted.

I'll meet you half way in that it's just good taste, politeness, and better aesthetics for these people to use less combative language. Maybe there's something about politics in there too, in that combative language looks bad in retrospect, whenever these things happen.

[punked]

That's a disconnect.

The words weren't the cause of the events, so... those who use them have to accept the fall out... I guess meaning the fall out that their words are misinterpreted to have caused the event ?

That's a little twisted.

I'll meet you half way in that it's just good taste, politeness, and better aesthetics for these people to use less combative language. Maybe there's something about politics in there too, in that combative language looks bad in retrospect, whenever these things happen.

I guess that is as good as we will get.

[scribblet]

Obviously he is unstable. I don't know how you can make conclusions about his political ideology based on his reading list. The only conclusive proof we have of anything is that he agreed with Sharron Angle about "second amendment remedies."

How dare you! I didn't make a conclusion about his political ideology, I said "His ideology doesn't seem to fit any side so the left is going to have a real problem pinning this on the tea party" and "he held eclectic viewpoints which seem to defy political classification."

[bloodyminded]

Tea Party Culture seems to be unified... I think I have even read calls for TP unity from them.

Temporarily. I believe fission is inevitable, given the blatant contradictions, and the fact that some of them are undoubtedly much smarter than others, and will inevitably recognize the absurdities of multi-millionaires and well-worn political hacks leading the "populist rebellion" straight into the arms of one of the two most powerful and entrenched political parties on the planet.

The lefties who admired Obama can attest to this, no doubt.

Those Americans are likely in the same boat as him.

But they are, by definition, every bit as true-blooded American as are bible-thumping, gun-totin' Palin admirers.

If not, why not?

They're weird, they're not like me, but I can't believe that they want to kill me and my ilk.

No, and I'm in agreement on this point.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded