Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) shot

[cabernetluver]

The second point. Nobody is blaming the rhetoric for causing the threat!!! They can't be consistent about anything! In the wake of the shooting there was all this rhetoric blaming Palin, the Tea Party, and all these other conservatives for the shooting. This guy gives an interview expressing (in a more extreme manner) that same idea, and then he threatens a Tea Party leader at a town hall. And they don't make any connection whatsoever between the two things. He is being treated as a lone nut, which is how he should be treated, but it's not how they'd be treating him if he was a conservative.

This gets back to something I have discussed. No one is saying there is a specific causul link between the rhetoric and the shooting, however, there is a reasoned view that says the atmosphere is made more toxic, not by a single person, but instead by the entirety of the rhetoric. This is not just a left of center point of view. I appologize for not having links, but, I have heard Peggy Noonan express this. I have heard Joe Scarbourough express this. I believe most in Congress by expressing a wish to tone down the rhetoric are expressing this.

Influence is important. The rhetoric influences behavior. We have agreed that the shooter was and is unbalanced. In his unbalanced state, people shouting out violence can be a contributing factor.

So, while you are correct that no specific person has been directly tied to this piece of human detritus, the atmospherics, in my opinion, contributed to his actions, and as such, collectively are in part to blame. Not just from the right, but from all parties.

[gcoll]

Are you really surprised? The type itching to blame a shooting on a third party's rhetoric certainly isn't above hypocrisy, no?

And to be fair, the media treats Palin, et al. as nuts also, just not lone nuts.

I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing out the double standard.

The Tea Party is demonized for two years. Someone threatens a tea party member. No connection is made, nor should it, but they hold every conservative responsible if some nut brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a rally.

Influence is important. The rhetoric influences behavior. We have agreed that the shooter was and is unbalanced. In his unbalanced state, people shouting out violence can be a contributing factor.

As it stands there is no evidence that he paid attention to anyone's rhetoric. It's tough for me to believe that someone can be heavily influenced by something they may have heard in passing. It is also hard for me to believe that someone as extreme as this shooter appears to be gives a **** about what Palin says. Even if he knew of what she said, my guess is he hates her.

But. If you're going to hold that view, fine. But all I ask for is consistency. The Tea Party has been demonized as a group of racist, reactionary, inciters of violence for the past 2 years. Someone just threatened a leader of some Tea Party group at a Tucson Town Hall meeting. Now, you may be willing to say that the "atmospherics" may have contributed to this guy making that threat, however, most aren't. Fox News probably would have, but not under the current circumstances.

[GGGGG-Men]

In other news......35 people were shot and killed in ghettos across the country and hundreds more were murdered in Mexico drug cartel wars.......nobody cares.

[philab]

I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing out the double standard.

The Tea Party is demonized for two years. Someone threatens a tea party member. No connection is made, nor should it, but they hold every conservative responsible if some nut brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a rally.

And thus the stupidity inherent to labels and group action.

[cabernetluver]

The Tea Party is demonized for two years. Someone threatens a tea party member. No connection is made, nor should it, but they hold every conservative responsible if some nut brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a rally.

Now it seems to me the fact that the man had been wounded in the shooting, something that would traumatize most of us who are civilians living in cities in America. I would think that would be a stronger influence in his case than every sign carrying fool. Now, this does not say that the foolish individual carrying the sign had no influence, and in this case, might even be a titrating amount of influence, but all and all, I would imagine getting wounded was the bigger influence. Kind of changes the conversation when we bring up that he was shot.

[gcoll]

Now it seems to me the fact that the man had been wounded in the shooting, something that would traumatize most of us who are civilians living in cities in America. I would think that would be a stronger influence in his case than every sign carrying fool. Now, this does not say that the foolish individual carrying the sign had no influence, and in this case, might even be a titrating amount of influence, but all and all, I would imagine getting wounded was the bigger influence. Kind of changes the conversation when we bring up that he was shot.

Well. If we're talking seriously. I think a political zealot will be a political zealot regardless of circumstances. The guy in this case appears to be a political zealot.

Who said anything about a foolish individual carrying a sign? I was talking about the demonization of the Tea Party by people in the media. This guy threatens a Tea Party member, and no connection is drawn between the two. Illustrating the double standard I am talking about.

And, wouldn't the same rules apply to a person who is not thinking right due to being through trauma, as someone not thinking right due to mental illness?

[cabernetluver]

Well. If we're talking seriously. I think a political zealot will be a political zealot regardless of circumstances. The guy in this case appears to be a political zealot.

Who said anything about a foolish individual carrying a sign? I was talking about the demonization of the Tea Party by people in the media. This guy threatens a Tea Party member, and no connection is drawn between the two. Illustrating the double standard I am talking about.

I thought your post had said something about an Obama Nazi reference. Sorry if I misread it.

Secondly, the man was wrong, admitted he was wrong, and still you bring up a double standard. The guy was shot. The guy made a bad statement. The man applogized. Said he was wrong. Looks consistent in standards to me.

[gcoll]

I thought your post had said something about an Obama Nazi reference. Sorry if I misread it.

Secondly, the man was wrong, admitted he was wrong, and still you bring up a double standard. The guy was shot. The guy made a bad statement. The man applogized. Said he was wrong. Looks consistent in standards to me.

The Obama-Nazi sign was about how conservatives have been asked for two years to answer for any nut who says something stupid. Like, someone brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a protest, and any Republican guest on any show is asked to condemn it.

Whereas here's a liberal nut. Liberals won't be asked to condemn this guy. It's just taken as a given that a rational liberal would not condone that sort of thing.

[cabernetluver]

The Obama-Nazi sign was about how conservatives have been asked for two years to answer for any nut who says something stupid. Like, someone brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a protest, and any Republican guest on any show is asked to condemn it.

Whereas here's a liberal nut. Liberals won't be asked to condemn this guy. It's just taken as a given that a rational liberal would not condone that sort of thing.

My mistake in misreading it. However, Eric Fuller, the man in question, had been shot, said a wrong thing, admitted it. In fact, he did not even condone his own behavior. In as much as you like to tie things to specifics, here is a case of a man who had in fact kept a consistent standard, and when he violated it, admitted it himself.

No one has said people do not make irrational actions, nor if you go back, will you see that I did not include people on the left. The point is that most people have agreed to tone down the rhetoric to restore a better "atmosphere" for all of us to live in.

[gcoll]

My mistake in misreading it. However, Eric Fuller, the man in question, had been shot, said a wrong thing, admitted it. In fact, he did not even condone his own behavior. In as much as you like to tie things to specifics, here is a case of a man who had in fact kept a consistent standard, and when he violated it, admitted it himself.

No one has said people do not make irrational actions, nor if you go back, will you see that I did not include people on the left. The point is that most people have agreed to tone down the rhetoric to restore a better "atmosphere" for all of us to live in.

He apologized, correct. But I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the media reaction to him.

And I do not care what most people have agreed to. "Let's be more civil!" It's a platitude, unless you do something to be more civil, but nobody is going to do that. They may watch the gun metaphors a bit, that'll probably be as far as it goes.

*And just as a sidenote. Fuller apologized for the threat, which was good to do, but he didn't apologize for the initial extreme remarks on the radio (as far as I'm aware). So I think my conclusion that he is a zealot may be correct.

[philab]

The Obama-Nazi sign was about how conservatives have been asked for two years to answer for any nut who says something stupid. Like, someone brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a protest, and any Republican guest on any show is asked to condemn it.

Whereas here's a liberal nut. Liberals won't be asked to condemn this guy. It's just taken as a given that a rational liberal would not condone that sort of thing.

You seem to be tilting at windmills a bit here. The guy was about to be made a "liberal hero" ... until, you know, he threatened a Tea Party member. And that's somehow a shot at the media? I mean, the left didn't make him a hero after that. Is that not implicitly condemning the guy?

There is a bit of a difference that you keep glossing over ... Standing next to a guy at a rally who is holding an "Obama Nazi" sign is implicit affirmation. Halting plans to heroize a guy after he threatens someone is implicit condemnation.

On that first part, let me be clear that I maintain that no one should have to expressly condemn the actions of others. But scooting by on the baseline of conduct is not the same as flying slightly above it either.

I certainly won't be defending the media's consistency or "lack of hypocrisy," if you will, but didn't they get this one right? Wasn't pulling out the appropriate response? Faulting them here is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

[gcoll]

It was more of a realization that praising him would be politically stupid. And that's a point about the far left, not the media in general. And they'll glorify him for apologizing now.

The media got this one right, but there is still a double standard because they get all the one's about conservatives wrong. My point is that there was all this anti-Tea Party rhetoric, and when a Tea Party member was threatened, they didn't for one second consider it in any way related to the rhetoric. They are right not to. But, they are guilty of a double standard. Look at the Tucson shooting story. There has not been one shred of evidence linking the shooter to anyone's rhetoric, and we've had a week long diatribe about political rhetoric, specifically in relation to Sarah Palin.

[philab]

It was more of a realization that praising him would be politically stupid. And that's a point about the far left, not the media in general. And they'll glorify him for apologizing now.

The media got this one right, but there is still a double standard because they get all the one's about conservatives wrong. My point is that there was all this anti-Tea Party rhetoric, and when a Tea Party member was threatened, they didn't for one second consider it in any way related to the rhetoric. They are right not to. But, they are guilty of a double standard.

Yeah, they have double standards. I just tend to shy away from comparison arguments. They were wrong in demanding that Tea Partiers condemn the violence of others. And that remains true to this day. That's where the fault should go, not to some double standard. When you fault the wrong and then fault the right because it wasn't consistent with the wrong ... it all just starts to become noise. Sort of start to get lost in the woods that way. Not that you or I have any relevance to the media's actions, but still.

[gcoll]

Yeah, they have double standards. I just tend to shy away from comparison arguments. They were wrong in demanding that Tea Partiers condemn the violence of others. And that remains true to this day. That's where the fault should go, not to some double standard. When you fault the wrong and then fault the right because it wasn't consistent with the wrong ... it all just starts to become noise. Sort of start to get lost in the woods that way. Not that you or I have any relevance to the media's actions, but still.

Being wrong is one thing. But the inconsistency shows they are also dishonest.

I'll take someone honest that I disagree with, over someone dishonest that I agree with half the time.

[North Country]

The Obama-Nazi sign was about how conservatives have been asked for two years to answer for any nut who says something stupid. Like, someone brings an Obama-Nazi sign to a protest, and any Republican guest on any show is asked to condemn it.

Whereas here's a liberal nut. Liberals won't be asked to condemn this guy. It's just taken as a given that a rational liberal would not condone that sort of thing.

Someone should make a movie about how repressed conservatives are. Perhaps they could call it Precious II: Let Freedom Ring!