Monday, January 10, 2011

Thoughts on Arizona Shooting – Rhetoric, Sarah Palin, and Guns

Thoughts on Arizona Shooting – Rhetoric, Sarah Palin, and Guns

12 comments:

Nemo said...

"NO EQUIVALENT TO THE RHETORIC ON THE LEFT!"

Oh really?

Last October 23rd,
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa, "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

Yeah, no "EQUIVALENT RHETORIC" on the left.

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

That IS disturbing. In America we don't shoot criminals like Rick Scott.

That however, deos not meet the standard for "equivalent", that is One Red Herring. Can you make it two? How about 20? I could bring 20 Gopster examples without breaking a sweat.

Equivalence would require such atrocioius rhetoric on the left to be as pervasive, widespread, corrdinated and condoned as it has been in the GOPunditry. It's not even close.

Your "logic" has failed you again.

B.S. Miller said...

I love how we are attracting right-wing sympathizers and defenders. Norman Goldman hit it out of the park last night on his show about how the bumper stickers on the right versus the left. On the right they have "Democrat hunting permits". You just don't see that on our side!

Nemo said...

sean please, don't type the word "logic", I enjoy besting you and would hate to see you burst into flames.

Let's review some basic logic for those of you that may have been sleeping during class.

If I were to say there is NO number that when added to 1 equals 3 you could show that false by producing a number (it's 2 in this example sean) that, when added to 1, equals 3.

Likewise when you state "NO EQUIVALENT TO THE RHETORIC ON THE LEFT" all I have to do to show the statement false is produce 1 example of equivalent rhetoric and the argument is proved false.

Such is the case with universal qualifiers. They make strong statements but are easily disproved if not true. Miller, you would be better off using existential qualifiers (ie LESS SUCH RHETORIC ON THE LEFT) in the future.

Miller, sorry, this site didn't attract me to defend anything but rather I was invited here by sean after being banished (banished I tells ya!) from kay's for the third* and final time.


*The first banishment came after I questioned the left's commitment to free speech (the irony still makes be laugh). The second came after I quoted Thomas Mann and the third came, well, out of the blue (heh).

socranley said...

Dear Anemonous, the blog that Miller linked starts out as follows: "Both sides are, in fact, not "just as bad," when it comes to institutionally sanctioned violent and eliminationist rhetoric."

That statement is unassailable as demonstrated by your latching onto "equivalent" as the sole measure your willing to use AND by your inability to provide additional examples to demostrate that the left and right are similar in the scope, degree and acceptance of such rhetoric.

Is the statment by the Ex-Rep PK, D-PA as outrageous as statements made by El Snortbo or Glenn Speck? Yes.

Has he gone on to repaetedly make similarly statements as the above do on almost a daily basis? No.

Has he been echoed by other representatives and pudits on the left like ES and GS are? No.

Has PK been accepted and even lauded by those of us on the left as ES, GS and DOPunditry have for their outrageous rhetoric? No.

And finally, can you point to specific instances of violence that are DIRECTLY the result of the words of Mr. PK as I can for Mr. Speck? No.

Equivalent? By one metric, yes. But in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely not.

Now run along home, dealing with your simplistic and unmoveable "logic" is a waste of time.

Nemo said...

sean, if I show you more examples of "EQUIVALENT RHETORIC" on the left will you admit that the Miller link is flawed?

Of course it has already been established (on the Ed Shultz show no less!) that at least one of the people than tackled Jared were armed and going to shoot him had Jared not paused to reload. This makes the last line of the link clearly false.

It is especially entertaining to see your last paragraph. Do all the unhinged counter rational thoughts by spewing dubious "facts" and then dis-inviting a retort or is it just you?

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Let's see what you've got to match this: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/lets-get-this-straight.html

Nemo said...

http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/01/16/tucson-shooting-survivor-arrested-death-threat

Heh.

By the way, do you know the number of Republican leaders in Wisconsin that have the feds investigating death threats against them? I lost count.

Sean Cranley said...

Yeah they're holding him for psychiatric evaluation, the poor guy's probabaly got PTSD.

So an isolated anonymous nut is the same GOPleaders and GOPundits spewing vile lies and violent rhetoric on a daily basis.

One anonymous threat is the same as a series of actual violent acts?

http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-right-wing-political-violence.html

I don't think so.

Nemo said...

Some of the nuts on your linked list seem to have leftist ideas, hardly right wing.

James von Brunn : Opposition to the Iraq War. Felt that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job" (It's BOOOOSH!)

Andrew Joseph Stack III : Expressed displeasure with the bailout of financial institutions, politicians, the conglomerate companies of General Motors, Enron and Arthur Andersen, unions, drug and health care insurance companies, and the Catholic Church.
The suicide note also included criticism of the Bush administration (It's BOOOOSH!).

Sounds like two KOS kids to me. Or you.

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Well, not every nut job can maintain complete ideological purity like you Nemo.

Oh, try Googling World Trade Center #7 collapse. Very odd, indeed.

Nemo said...

I particularly liked the PM link.

What does showing evidence of nuttiness on the left (It's Boooooosh!) have to do with "ideological purity"?