Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jan '11 14:28 / 1 edit
    I happily note that, while left wing nuts like

    Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2

    and

    Keith Olbermann

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

    have predictably used the tragedy to incite their brand of hate , President Obama has notably refrained from using the shooting as a political tool and has put out only a message unity and non-hate.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41053561/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    Congratulations, Mr. President.

    As for people who jumped the gun ascribed the actions of this angry lone nut to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Co., I'd love to rip them, but Charles Krauthammer does the job better than I could.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html

    The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

    The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

    As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

    Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

    A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

    His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

    This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

    These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

    Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."

    Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.

    Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.

    When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

    Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

    The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?


    To these words of truth, I have little to add.
  2. 13 Jan '11 14:33
    Isn't that a standard procedure for any president? Surely, a presidents wants mainstream appeal.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jan '11 14:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Isn't that a standard procedure for any president? Surely, a presidents wants mainstream appeal.
    That doesn't make it any less commendable.
  4. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    13 Jan '11 14:48
    "State authorities are expected to bring charges against him later for attacking non-government employees."

    Nice, that they are considered more important than a young child. Lovely!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12150161



    -m.
  5. 13 Jan '11 14:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    I happily note that, while left wing nuts like

    Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2

    and

    Keith Olbermann

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

    have predictably used the tragedy to incite their brand of hate , President Obama has notably refrained from using the sh ...[text shortened]... ]

    To these words of truth, I have little to add.
    Yes indeed, one cannot help but note the differences between the President , who calls for unity and Mrs Palin, who cannot help but use the opportunity to make an attack, in fact, even trying to justify her use of gun related metaphor.
  6. 13 Jan '11 15:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    I happily note that, while left wing nuts like

    Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2

    and

    Keith Olbermann

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

    have predictably used the tragedy to incite their brand of hate , President Obama has notably refrained from using the sh ...[text shortened]... ]

    To these words of truth, I have little to add.
    What specifically in Krugman's article is an "incitement of hate"??
  7. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    13 Jan '11 15:16
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    What specifically in Krugman's article is an "incitement of hate"??
    I was wondering the same thing -- also, how does he qualify to be a 'left-wing nut'?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    13 Jan '11 15:16
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    What specifically in Krugman's article is an "incitement of hate"??
    Maybe you're supposed to ask Charles Krauthammer rather than sh76.
  9. 13 Jan '11 15:18
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I was wondering the same thing -- also, how does he qualify to be a 'left-wing nut'?
    He's a "nut" because the right wing calls him one and they don't want to acknowledge anything he says.
  10. 13 Jan '11 15:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    Maybe you're supposed to ask Charles Krauthammer rather than sh76.
    It was sh76 who made the claim that he was inciting hate, not Krauthammer. Why would I ask Krauthammer?

    Also, let me know when Krauthammer starts posting here and I will ask him
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    13 Jan '11 15:22
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    It was sh76 who made the claim that he was inciting hate, not Krauthammer. Why would I ask Krauthammer?

    Also, let me know when Krauthammer starts posting here and I will ask him
    It seems sh76 has been incited to hate Krugman by reading Krauthammer. So Krauthammer is the key to all this.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    13 Jan '11 15:23
    Arguably, sh76 is a victim.

    Where's Krauthammer? Where is he?
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jan '11 15:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    What specifically in Krugman's article is an "incitement of hate"??
    Did you read the article?

    Title: "Climate of Hate"

    First sentences:

    When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

    Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign.


    Clearly blaming the shooting on public rhetoric.


    I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.


    Clearly, clearly blaming Ok City bombing on on right wing anti-Clinton rhetoric and blaming McCain-Palin for inciting further bombings.

    The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.


    Clearly linking and intending to link "right-wing extremism" with the Arizona shooting.

    It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.


    Once again, clearly stating that the "national climate" was responsible for the Arizona shooting.

    etc. etc. ad nauseaum...

    The entire article, start to finish, is about how we have to blame right wing politicians for the Arizona shooting.

    If that isn't an incitement to hate, what exactly would be?
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jan '11 15:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    It seems sh76 has been incited to hate Krugman by reading Krauthammer. So Krauthammer is the key to all this.
    I don't hate Krugman. I think that, while he's a smart economist (even though I don't agree with many of his ideas), politically, he's a far left wing clown.

    In any case, "hate" of an individual for their statements and positions is not the same as hate of a large group of people, most of whom he knows nothing about.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    13 Jan '11 15:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    If that isn't an incitement to hate, what exactly would be?
    Analyisis - you disagree with - of a shockingly polarized political domain. Which you are perhaps trying to discredit by labelling it 'hatespeech'. Surely not?