Responding to the accusations regarding the AZ shooting.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

x-posted to my journal

I was using this as a response to someone else, but in constructing the response I found some important information that I need to save for future reference. I'm posting this here in case anyone wants to use it.

Regarding the AZ shooting, and dealing with these sorts of discussions in general:


The problem is these types of discussions often devolve into a challenge of 'Whose side has more examples of XYZ bad behavior?' This can go on endlessly because there is no way to list EVERY single incident or comment that one side or the other has made, and lay them side by side to see who  has more. That's impossible.

Use an example or two, but then get them back to the main point. In this case:

"How does whatever Sarah Palin said or printed" (you can get specific) "mean that she's responsible for these shooting? Didn't Barack Obama when he was campaigning, say his supporters should: 'argue and get in their face' of their friends and neighbors? Here's the video. That's not him saying that?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

"Didn't he also use a movie quote, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” to illustrate his fight with Republicans?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?_r=1

"So by this reasoning, isn't Barack Obama responsible for these shootings, especially since by the shooter's own admission, he seems to have more Left views than Right ones?"

And then you wait for a response. This means they will have to watch the video and read the article. If you see they're not doing that, then you tell them you won't go further until they do. You took some time to provide this evidence and it's only right that they consider it in their answer. If they keep yammering, ask them why they won't look at what you have provided. You considered what they had to say. Why will they not do likewise? By this time you will see the smoke coming out of their ears.

If When they start screaming, then you calmly end the conversation.

Comments

[fishsanwitt]

Yes, President Obama did say those things.

I don't know how they compare though to Bill O'Reilly calling Doctor George Tiller 'Tiller the Killer' or Sarah Palin with her map, targeting Gabrielle Giffords as well as other Democrats or Glenn Beck, posting about non-violence while holding a gun (a la '24'). What about Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, to name just a few others who advocate violence and armed insurrection and uprising?

I'm just asking.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

(I don't know how this screening system works on communities. Hopefully this reply will show up.)

Please answer the question I posed, which is:

I posted two verifiable examples of Barack Obama using what the media is calling "violent" or "inflammatory rhetoric. You, as a self-identified liberal (via your User Info) admitted he did say these two things. So by the reasoning you're using, does this mean Obama is responsible for these shootings, especially since by the shooter's own admission, he seems to have more Left views than Right ones?

[fishsanwitt]

I posted two verifiable examples of Barack Obama using what the media is calling "violent" or "inflammatory rhetoric.

I find that the right wing talking heads use even worse imagery - Beck ('take action', 'take back the government', 'clean up' the government ad nauseum) as one example.

You, as a self-identified liberal (via your User Info) admitted he did say these two things.

I don't see the connection between my being a Liberal and my acknowledging reality - yes, he said what he said.

So by the reasoning you're using,

That's an odd turn of phrase - go on.

does this mean Obama is responsible for these shootings, especially since by the shooter's own admission, he seems to have more Left views than Right ones?

No. I don't blame President Obama - he never said 'Don't retreat. Reload.' He never posed with a gun (Beck again). He never demonized someone the way O'Reilly did on his show - over and over and *over* again until someone shot Dr. Tiller.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I find that the right wing talking heads use even worse imagery - Beck ('take action', 'take back the government', 'clean up' the government ad nauseum) as one example.

I said in my original post that it's simply impossible to find and list every single incident of bad behavior or controversial comments made by politicians or other speakers in order to compare which side is worse. Why, then, would you go and do just that?

But I'll go with it just a bit, for the sake of discussion.

***

I would've appreciated some links so I could see the comments for myself and in whatever context. I did you that courtesy. Why was it not reciprocated?

Looking at them just here as you've worded them, 'taking action', 'taking back your government' and 'cleaning up the government' don't sound at all like the two examples I gave, and yet you consider them worse?

But let's pretend they are equal. "He does it too/worse!" is not a valid response. One example of (supposedly) bad behavior does not excuse another.

I don't see the connection between my being a Liberal and my acknowledging reality - yes, he said what he said.

You're linking conservatives using (supposed) inflammatory language to this shooting. I demonstrated a liberal using inflammatory language and asking the question why is only the conservative side being blamed for this shooting, when (again, supposedly) both sides are using that sort of language?


It's actually a bit of a trick question, though, since the only person to blame for these shootings is the person who committed them.

***

Please address the questions asked, or else I am wasting my time and yours. I will not continue being sidetracked. Thank you.

***

ETA: I edited this post a bunch of times, and neglected the most important question - please address Obama's comments themselves. Why do not consider his comments "inflammatory" or whatever word you want to use, but instead focus on other people? I posted about Obama. Please address what *he* said.

[fishsanwitt]

"I said in my original post that it's simply impossible to find and list every single incident of bad behavior or controversial comments made by politicians or other speakers in order to compare which side is worse. Why, then, would you go and do just that?"

I don't know - it just felt right.

Okay, on to the discussion -

"I would've appreciated some links so I could see the comments for myself and in whatever context. I did you that courtesy. Why was it not reciprocated?"

Because I'm dealing with a sick puppy right now and I honestly couldn't take the time to check my links.

"Looking at them just here as you've worded them, 'taking action', 'taking back your government' and 'cleaning up the government' don't sound at all like the two examples I gave, and yet you consider them worse?"

I left out the loonier parts of Beck's speeches.

I thought it was odd that you mentioned 'my reality', not the Liberal/Conservative aspect.

I'm actually enjoying our conversation, but I understand if you don't want to continue.

Regarding President Obama's comments. What about them? He was clearly responding to comments put out by the Right wing.

What do *you* think about Sarah Palin's 'Reload' comment? What things does one reload?

President Obama never said 'Go out there and kill someone.' He said, 'We will stand our ground.' (I'm paraphrasing here.) I don't know how to paraphrase 'reload'.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I don't know - it just felt right.

We're not dealing with feelings in this discussion. We're dealing with facts.

Because I'm dealing with a sick puppy right now and I honestly couldn't take the time to check my links.

No one's telling you to do it right at the moment. Of course we all have lives. You just can't be bothered to bring facts and evidence to the discussion.

I left out the loonier parts of Beck's speeches.

Apparently, you left them out twice because you haven't added them here either. Why bother mentioning at all that his speeches (or parts of them) are "loony", if you won't give evidence for it?

I thought it was odd that you mentioned 'my reality', not the Liberal/Conservative aspect.

Sorry, you lost me here. Not sure what you're referring to.

I'm actually enjoying our conversation, but I understand if you don't want to continue.

I'm not enjoying it. You're ignoring the main points over and over and over again. I don't know if you're deliberately playing games or really are this obtuse.

Regarding President Obama's comments. What about them? He was clearly responding to comments put out by the Right wing.

LOL!!!

I'm sorry, that's not a real response. But that was my reaction on reading this. I am not concerned with who he was responding to. Address what he said.

Explain to me why Obama's rhetoric (which I provided evidence for, using video as well as direct quotes from... I think it was the NYT) is not considered violent or inflammatory, while your (evidence-less) examples from the Right are considered so. Explain it to me.

What do *you* think about Sarah Palin's 'Reload' comment? What things does one reload?

Please stop getting off track. Please answer what I have asked you repeatedly:

You're linking conservatives using (supposed) inflammatory language to this shooting. I demonstrated a liberal using inflammatory language and asking the question why is only the conservative side being blamed for this shooting, when (again, supposedly) both sides are using that sort of language?

And really, the only thing I should've said in response to you is:

Show me what evidence you have of Sarah Palin or any other conservative being in any way responsible for the shooting in AZ.

Once again, ONE PERSON is responsible for this shooting - the man who committed it.

***

Unless you're going to address what I've asked, I am done. I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of the type of discussion I was describing in my original post.

[cutelildrow.livejournal.com]

Apparently loading up and reloading verbal salvos are things applicable only to Leftists, but can only mean military hardware if it's the Right. That's the implication, since they seem to like buying the idea that they're harmless, non violent folk, incapable of harming even mosquitos.

I've read somewhere in the web hopping around the observation most rallies and gatherings by the Right tend to be very civilized, orderly, and afterward, they pick up after themselves. The opposite seems to be true for gatherings held by the Left. I don't know if that's universally true, but I do remember that the Glen Beck rally and one of the anti-Ground Zero Rabat/Mosque rallies held by SIOA were such events.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I've been to a couple of the Tea Parties and they were perfectly civilized. People brought kids and everything. I went to some of the anti-war protests back in the day (in counter-protest) and they were the most frightening, hate filled things I've ever witnessed. The Bush=Hitler, 'Bush is a war criminal' and the slogans promoting violence toward him are all true. I've seen them with my own eyes.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

It's been several days now, and still no response to my last comment and request for previous questions/points to be addressed. I will repeat it:

***

I don't know - it just felt right.

We're not dealing with feelings in this discussion. We're dealing with facts.

Because I'm dealing with a sick puppy right now and I honestly couldn't take the time to check my links.

No one's telling you to do it right at the moment. Of course we all have lives. You just can't be bothered to bring facts and evidence to the discussion.

I left out the loonier parts of Beck's speeches.

Apparently, you left them out twice because you haven't added them here either. Why bother mentioning at all that his speeches (or parts of them) are "loony", if you won't give evidence for it?

I thought it was odd that you mentioned 'my reality', not the Liberal/Conservative aspect.

Sorry, you lost me here. Not sure what you're referring to.

I'm actually enjoying our conversation, but I understand if you don't want to continue.

I'm not enjoying it. You're ignoring the main points over and over and over again. I don't know if you're deliberately playing games or really are this obtuse.

Regarding President Obama's comments. What about them? He was clearly responding to comments put out by the Right wing.

LOL!!!

I'm sorry, that's not a real response. But that was my reaction on reading this. I am not concerned with who he was responding to. Address what he said.

Explain to me why Obama's rhetoric (which I provided evidence for, using video as well as direct quotes from... I think it was the NYT) is not considered violent or inflammatory, while your (evidence-less) examples from the Right are considered so. Explain it to me.

What do *you* think about Sarah Palin's 'Reload' comment? What things does one reload?

Please stop getting off track. Please answer what I have asked you repeatedly:

You're linking conservatives using (supposed) inflammatory language to this shooting. I demonstrated a liberal using inflammatory language and asking the question why is only the conservative side being blamed for this shooting, when (again, supposedly) both sides are using that sort of language?

And really, the only thing I should've said in response to you is:

Show me what evidence you have of Sarah Palin or any other conservative being in any way responsible for the shooting in AZ.

Once again, ONE PERSON is responsible for this shooting - the man who committed it.

***

Unless you're going to address what I've asked, I am done. I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of the type of discussion I was describing in my original post.

[fishsanwitt]

When I have all the information I need to answer the questions you've asked, I'll respond.

Thank you for the enlightening and informative conversation.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

You've had more than enough time to respond.

Thank you for being such a good example of what I was talking about in my post.

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

Sorry but finger pointing to say the other side is more responsible is hypocritical and counter productive. Thank you for being part of the problem with the current climate of hostile political rhetoric.

What Mo's point is if political rhetoric is the cause of this shooting (which it is not), why is only conservatives getting blamed and no one has addressed Obama's comments? Or what about Bill Maher? Look up what Bill Maher has said about conservatives and then we'll talk about violent rhetoric.

No one is saying that conservatives are innocent of saying things they should or shouldn't. But liberals have not been owning up to their side while expecting conservatives to own up to theirs. That is not fair. Period. That is not opening a political dialogue and trying to work together but looking to shut down political dialogue.

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

I've been using the, "Are you for restriction of freedom of speech?" route. So far when asking how would you define responsible speech, I have yet to get a response.

Also, the biggest thing people have been asking me have been, "Mentally ill people are easily influenced." Right. But the mentally ill have killed people because they were influenced by video games, Beatles Music, Jodie Foster, the Quran, and even some read something they read in the Bible and misinterpret it as a reason to kill. If you are going to use that as an argument, we will have to tell Jodie Foster to not make another movie ever again. And that is a shame because Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite movies.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

But the mentally ill have killed people because they were influenced by...

Exactly! We'd have to remove everything, because such persons could possibly be influenced by anything. And you cannot fully blame outside influences anyway, since some people hear voices inside their own heads.

This approach does not make any logical sense. Nor is it possible to implement in any practical way. Have you received any response to this approach?

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

It's like these people don't have the concept of the slippery slope at all nor do they realize that to make an argument for "responsible speech" is pretty much the same argument made to suppress the civil rights movement for instance. It is asinine. What they really mean is, "I want to suppress speech I don't like."

While I do think we need to look at mental health in a different way, people need to realize that mentally ill people don't follow the same rules of thought that most people do.

And no one has given me a response that didn't spiral down into name calling. It is really sad.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

What they really mean is, "I want to suppress speech I don't like."

Exactly right. I wish they'd just be up front about that.

And no one has given me a response that didn't spiral down into name calling. It is really sad.

This is the part that I don't understand and that frustrates me so much. Why can't people discuss things like mature adults? Why does it so often have to end up this way?

(I'm sure you don't know either. I'm just wondering aloud. I hate not being able to understand or make sense of something. And in this, I just cannot.)

[ga-unicorn.livejournal.com]

Some good examples, thanks. I'm still having people throw the Palin's Map argument at me, so I was pleased to see Neal Boortz had done a write-up of one of his on-air "rants." You can add this link to the list of things liberals don't want to read:
http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2011/01/12/sarah_palins_map

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I'd been hearing on the fringes about some map where Sarah Palin (supposedly) targeted Giffords' area or something. I hadn't looked into it directly myself because the very IDEA that people could make a connection like that was so ludicrous that I couldn't even imagine them doing it.

So that's what people are talking about? A map with little symbols on it?

You mean, maps like all politicians have for campaign/event stops or potential stops, maps like people make when they are considering a move/job change, maps like sales people use for TARGET MARKETS, maps like speakers from any industry might have for potential locations to visit, etc.

Because she had this map, her intent was for someone to kill Giffords?

That is what the fuss is about? This is HILARIOUS!

They keep calling the shooter insane. I think it's these people making these accusations who are insane!

[ga-unicorn.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. You were expecting logical thought processes from the Left? ;)

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I expect logical thought processes from any adult. (Unless, of course, they have a physical or mental impairment that renders them incapable of it.)

[cutelildrow.livejournal.com]

May as well share one of my responses to erudito's very good post, which is unfortunately cluttered up by an idiot (http://erudito.livejournal.com/951415.html).

Allow me to say, I boggle at anyone stupid enough to say that Palin issues fatwas with any sort of seriousness. You weren't. You even clarified that you were joking. Then I get to the serious responses in reply, and I stop, and do what my icon is doing for a few minutes while I try to process the absolutely brilliant display of blithering stupidity.

I have to say, the absolute, desperate idiocy being displayed by those people grasping desperately at any chance to silence their opposition, blame Palin and blame the Tea Party while ignoring the scads and scads of violent Leftist rhetoric in the same breath is an application of S.I.N. tactics on a scope that is both breathtakingly hilarious, and horribly terrifying at the same time. And this is an observation not limited to conversations partaken of and witnessed, but also by the examples given by our host on the main post.

They don't even seem to care that they're sacrificing their own credibility, as long as they get the limitation of free speech (that they imagine will never apply to themselves) and the chopping off of the Second Amendment they so desperately desire, because they imagine that then, their opposition will then be without weapons and without defense, pretending that 'it's for the good of all.'

But well, since they're all for destroying their own credibility in the process of their crazed, desperate howling, I'll sit back and enjoy their antics. Starting with Krugman's. Because you know what? They're absolutely right. Their political rhetoric has completely brainwashed them... and then they serve themselves up as Exhibit A, so very proudly. When they're winding up to give themselves a stunning own goal, well, we should oblige and get the hell out of the way and let them! (Oh look, a soccer metaphor!)

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

There was so much good info in that post! I will have to bookmark for reference, thanks.

But wow, that commenter. Wow...