So Will You On The Left Call For Prosecution For Inspiring Violence?

mantisman51

Active Member
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html
Read the quotes before spouting lame rhetoric. This is far worse than everything the left tried to use against Palin and other conservatives. Will you on the left call for these fine Democratics :) prosecution for inciting violence as you did for the conservatives?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Seriously? Biden's comments are tame compared to some of the CRAP democrats have said in the last few months.
 

wangotango

Active Member
I read the quotes and I don't see any call for violence. If Biden had said "Republicans ARE terrorists and need to be dealt with" then I'd say you had a point. Even politicians are human. If you're in the middle of such a hot issue like this and you're extremely pissed off at the other side you're gonna say stuff. Calm, cool-minded stuff? Probably not. Could he, Doyle, Cleaver, and Gutierrez have used different words? Yeah, but I think it's a stretch to say that they were inspiring violence.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

I read the quotes and I don't see any call for violence. If Biden had said "Republicans ARE terrorists and need to be dealt with" then I'd say you had a point. Even politicians are human. If you're in the middle of such a hot issue like this and you're extremely pissed off at the other side you're gonna say stuff. Calm, cool-minded stuff? Probably not. Could he, Doyle, Cleaver, and Gutierrez have used different words? Yeah, but I think it's a stretch to say that they were inspiring violence.


Would you say...the term" crosshairs" inspires violence?
 

reefraff

Active Member
If you listened to the Dems and most of the media elite it was right wing hate speech that influenced the Tucson shootings. They attacked Sarah Palin for using cross hairs on a map, people talking about 2nd amendment solutions etc.
So during the Wisconsin union protests their were signs with Republican Scott Walker's face with cross hairs on it. Chant's of No justice no peace etc. and during this debate some of the crap Pelosi has said about Republicans that was over the top and not a peep from the media...
 

wangotango

Active Member
The term no, the juxtaposition of faces and crosshairs possibly. Both democrats and republicans are guilty of that one. Did anyone think violence would happen as a result? No, but it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3402953
Would you say...the term" crosshairs" inspires violence?
The problem I saw with why Palin was attacked was because Giffords was one of the "crosshairs" on her map. That was an unfortunate coincidence and I don't think that anyone on any side thought that there was a direct link between the two, but when there is a response to that graphic like that people are going to call you out, and you have to step back and reconsider why you used it in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of anyone who was "bullseyed" on the democrat map who was shot, but that still doesn't make it justified. Had they been switched then so should the blame. Either way I think singling out specific people is unjustified. There is a difference between rhetoric which is heated, distasteful, and inflamatory, and rhetoric which although its intent may not be to, could be misinterpreted as a call to carry out some sort of action. Calling someone a racist, unamerican, a terrorist, etc is the former. Crosshairs, "2nd amendment solutions", "guns to a knife fight", and "if ballots dont work bullets will" are the latter. I don't speak for the left or right so I won't justify either side. I think the way that the left attacks the right is different than the way the right attacks the left. Both do it, and if we wanted we could post quotes of each back and forth but there are enough threads of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3402955
If you listened to the Dems and most of the media elite it was right wing hate speech that influenced the Tucson shootings. They attacked Sarah Palin for using cross hairs on a map, people talking about 2nd amendment solutions etc.
So during the Wisconsin union protests their were signs with Republican Scott Walker's face with cross hairs on it. Chant's of No justice no peace etc. and during this debate some of the crap Pelosi has said about Republicans that was over the top and not a peep from the media...
On a side note I just saw that Gabby Giffords flew into DC to vote on the debt ceiling bill....
 

reefraff

Active Member
FACE PALM>>>>>>
AFTER attacking Palin for cross hairs on a map the media never uttered a damned word about cross hairs on Scott Walker's forehead.
After Attacking Sharon Angle for referring to second amendment solutions the media never said a word about the "No Justice No Peace" chants nor a Democrat Congressman telling the crowd it was time to "get a little bloody".
It's the double standard that annoys me and most conservatives. I can dig up multitudes of vicious comments from political figures on the left but it's only "right wing hate speech" the media wants to talk about.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403016
FACE PALM>>>>>>
AFTER attacking Palin for cross hairs on a map the media never uttered a damned word about cross hairs on Scott Walker's forehead.
After Attacking Sharon Angle for referring to second amendment solutions the media never said a word about the "No Justice No Peace" chants nor a Democrat Congressman telling the crowd it was time to "get a little bloody".
It's the double standard that annoys me and most conservatives. I can dig up multitudes of vicious comments from political figures on the left but it's only "right wing hate speech" the media wants to talk about.
Define "media". Online blog sites, hardcopy, major networks, cable networks, network web sites? Do media outlets that favor the Conservatives report this "right wing hate speech", or only the media you consider "liberally biased"? What about "politically neutral" media outlets? If it's all of the above, then obviously there some "aura" the Right is emanating that makes people and the media feel that way.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403047
Define "media". Online blog sites, hardcopy, major networks, cable networks, network web sites? Do media outlets that favor the Conservatives report this "right wing hate speech", or only the media you consider "liberally biased"? What about "politically neutral" media outlets? If it's all of the above, then obviously there some "aura" the Right is emanating that makes people and the media feel that way.
The alphabet networks all pretty much pushed it, ABC not as much as the other two. The Times. USA Today is one that pointed out the hypocrisy and showed examples from the other side. It might have been hardcopy that did a show about it and they showed some from the left as well.
Just as a matter of personal experience I've always heard more harsh language from the left wing. I mean they make it more personal and get more animated. That includes personal experience working on political campaigns for not just Republicans but some centrist Democrats. One friend was a pro union Democrat who did campaign consultant who was a Sam Nunn Liberal. Because he opposed the New Party takeover of the Democrat party he himself was attacked. One of his kids was asked how it was having a Nazi for a dad by one of them. This was someone he had considered a family friend.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
This whole media bias regarding American politics has exploded mainly due to the massive availability of political content with 8 of every 10 Americans having access to the Internet and 500 various TV stations in the last decade or so. When I was growing up, you had the 3 major TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and your local newspapaers as the only medium to obtain information on what was going on in Washington. Nowadays, anyone with a network connection and a keyboard can create a blog site, Facebook page, Twitter account, or web site, and post their views an ideologies online for the world to see. You have reporters sitting in the Congressional Rotunda doing instant updates on their Twitter account as to what's going on. Problem is, no one validates the accuracy of the comments or stories being made using this medium like they did in the old days. It gets immendiately posted, and before someone realizes the information is incorrect, or even outdated, 20 million people have already read it and take the information as being accurate and true. You can say the benefits of this technology have gotten more Americans involved with our national, state, and local politics. However, on the flip side, it also affords individuals to express how they really feel, whether what they are saying is accurate or even hurtful to the opposition they are speaking to.
 

wangotango

Active Member
That and a climate where it's not enough just to agree to disagree with someone of a different belief or party affiliation and move on you're almost obligated to throw some mud. When there is an automatic association of Democrats as left-wing radicals because they say or do something not in accordance with Republicans, or associating all Republicans as right-wing neo-cons when they do or say something not in accordance with Democrats it does nothing but add fuel to the fire. I honestly don't believe that we are truly as polarized as we are made to believe by the continuous barrage of sound bites coming from print, tv, and online. It's the fringes of each side that have the loudest voice. That's how I see it at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403109
This whole media bias regarding American politics has exploded mainly due to the massive availability of political content with 8 of every 10 Americans having access to the Internet and 500 various TV stations in the last decade or so. When I was growing up, you had the 3 major TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and your local newspapaers as the only medium to obtain information on what was going on in Washington. Nowadays, anyone with a network connection and a keyboard can create a blog site, Facebook page, Twitter account, or web site, and post their views an ideologies online for the world to see. You have reporters sitting in the Congressional Rotunda doing instant updates on their Twitter account as to what's going on. Problem is, no one validates the accuracy of the comments or stories being made using this medium like they did in the old days. It gets immendiately posted, and before someone realizes the information is incorrect, or even outdated, 20 million people have already read it and take the information as being accurate and true. You can say the benefits of this technology have gotten more Americans involved with our national, state, and local politics. However, on the flip side, it also affords individuals to express how they really feel, whether what they are saying is accurate or even hurtful to the opposition they are speaking to.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403109
This whole media bias regarding American politics has exploded mainly due to the massive availability of political content with 8 of every 10 Americans having access to the Internet and 500 various TV stations in the last decade or so. When I was growing up, you had the 3 major TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and your local newspapaers as the only medium to obtain information on what was going on in Washington. Nowadays, anyone with a network connection and a keyboard can create a blog site, Facebook page, Twitter account, or web site, and post their views an ideologies online for the world to see. You have reporters sitting in the Congressional Rotunda doing instant updates on their Twitter account as to what's going on. Problem is, no one validates the accuracy of the comments or stories being made using this medium like they did in the old days. It gets immendiately posted, and before someone realizes the information is incorrect, or even outdated, 20 million people have already read it and take the information as being accurate and true. You can say the benefits of this technology have gotten more Americans involved with our national, state, and local politics. However, on the flip side, it also affords individuals to express how they really feel, whether what they are saying is accurate or even hurtful to the opposition they are speaking to.
You make a fantastic point. I will add that as consumers of this information, we do a very poor job of holding the media accountable for this sort of thing... in fact, you'd probably find that it boils down to the media feeding us what we want. The general public is less interested in facts than in sensationalistic news. Look at headlines today... if McConnell professionally and elegantly makes a statement disagreeing with something Reid said or did, the media headline reads "McConnell BLASTS Reid's plan for ... " or "McConnell SLAMS democrats blah blah..." everything everywhere is slanted to be as dramatic as possible, and headlines are often worded in such a way that is downright misleading for the sake of getting the article read. This happens across all media, not just the "liberal" or "conservative" media.
Let's face it, the news has a lot of competition. The evening news has to compete for viewers with American Idol and Jersey Shore, the online news has to compete with tmz.com and facebook. In the end, it's our fault for having an appetite for the dramatic and exciting rather than the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WangoTango
http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403116
That and a climate where it's not enough just to agree to disagree with someone of a different belief or party affiliation and move on you're almost obligated to throw some mud. When there is an automatic association of Democrats as left-wing radicals because they say or do something not in accordance with Republicans, or associating all Republicans as right-wing neo-cons when they do or say something not in accordance with Democrats it does nothing but add fuel to the fire. I honestly don't believe that we are truly as polarized as we are made to believe by the continuous barrage of sound bites coming from print, tv, and online. It's the fringes of each side that have the loudest voice. That's how I see it at least.
This thread is only one example, but it's interesting to me how people point out a bias by bringing up someone something said, having not getting called to task about it. Conservatives point out something a liberal said, claiming "had one of our guys said that the media would have gone crazy!!!" The thing is that when a someone on their side says something, whether they get called to task on it or not, people on "their side" silently smile and scream "ooohhh burn" in their heads. While it may be very true that the bias exists, when someone of our own poltiical leaning throws a ball of mud, it's not like we don't enjoy watching it fly.
The polarization of our political climate is very unfortunate. The way things have become, it's almost a "you're either with us or against us" mentality. In truth, most Americans reach across the aisle for one belief or another. For example, I identify strongly as a conservative, yet I think that religion has absolutely no place in government. Too many conservative political circles would throw me to the curb for "betraying" that one aspect of conservative principles. Only when you look at both sides (especially the side you most disagree with) objectively can you truly obtain the truth.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
The difference is in the movies, on TV and on the radio, the left continuously spews the idea that anything right of Lenin is dangerous and needs to be silenced. There is no such equal to the right. Proof? If you believe in traditional marriage you are a dangerous bigot who must be silenced by law to stop "hate speech" and violence against homosexuals. If you are pro 2nd Amendment, you are a gun nut who is one liberal policy away from going on a rampage. If you believe there is room for careful oil and mineral exploration, you are trying to destroy the Earth. If you are pro-life, you are a lunatic conspiring with clinic bombers and want to hurt women. I could go on, but those examples I have given are the subject of TV, movies and songs and the right does not have the media wrapped up in one accord against the left as the left does. AND nowhere on the right is there a call to make lefty speech illegal like the lefties keep trying to get anything they don't like declared "hate speech" and made illegal.
 

wangotango

Active Member
I am not aware of any laws forbidding oneself from speaking out against things they disagree with. If such laws existed then the political climate we live in would not be as it is. Telling someone they should knock off saying dumb or hurtful things is not trying to silence them, a decent person can disagree and keep their mouth shut. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.
Mantis, the examples you've listed only further the point that we must be all or nothing, there is no middle ground. You can only be to the farthest extent of right or left, and from there you're convinced that the other side is hell-bent on destroying the country. It is possible to be pro same-sex marriage without wanting to destroy "traditional" marriages. It is possible to be pro 2nd Amendment but want gun control. It is possible to want to drill for oil here in an effort to lower our dependence on foreign oil without being an Al Gore "climate-ite." It is possible to be for abortions in specific cases without being a horrible human being. Both sides paint the other as a villan, and saying it has only been, is, and will always be the left is a bit disillusioned. For every example from the left there's another from the right. Trying to counter that with "well it's just the left/right" or "the left/right does it more" doesn't change that fact. I don't speak for liberals or conservatives. All I know is I have heard and seen vile language come from both sides. If you want me to admit that the left does it, fine I will because it's true. Would you also admit that there is vile language that comes from the right too?
 

wangotango

Active Member
Well put, REAL news is just boring. Give the audience a reason to want to watch and they will. In the case of networks like MSNBC, Fox News, and all of the other blatantly obvious liberal and conservative outlets, the reason they give you for wanting to watch is the "the other side did/said what?!" factor. It's like getting two friends to fight by telling them that the other said something bad about their mother. The hyper-inflation of actual stories such as in the Reid-McConnell example does nothing but pins one side against the other.
There is no accountability in the press either. And I don't just mean them saying mean things, but just getting things wrong. If I was in charge of an outlet that ran the President's trip to India costing what it "did" story or the Shirley Sherrod "is a racist story" I'd fire whoever did the fact checking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence#post_3403125
You make a fantastic point. I will add that as consumers of this information, we do a very poor job of holding the media accountable for this sort of thing... in fact, you'd probably find that it boils down to the media feeding us what we want. The general public is less interested in facts than in sensationalistic news. Look at headlines today... if McConnell professionally and elegantly makes a statement disagreeing with something Reid said or did, the media headline reads "McConnell BLASTS Reid's plan for ... " or "McConnell SLAMS democrats blah blah..." everything everywhere is slanted to be as dramatic as possible, and headlines are often worded in such a way that is downright misleading for the sake of getting the article read. This happens across all media, not just the "liberal" or "conservative" media.
Let's face it, the news has a lot of competition. The evening news has to compete for viewers with American Idol and Jersey Shore, the online news has to compete with tmz.com and facebook. In the end, it's our fault for having an appetite for the dramatic and exciting rather than the facts.
This thread is only one example, but it's interesting to me how people point out a bias by bringing up someone something said, having not getting called to task about it. Conservatives point out something a liberal said, claiming "had one of our guys said that the media would have gone crazy!!!" The thing is that when a someone on their side says something, whether they get called to task on it or not, people on "their side" silently smile and scream "ooohhh burn" in their heads. While it may be very true that the bias exists, when someone of our own poltiical leaning throws a ball of mud, it's not like we don't enjoy watching it fly.
The polarization of our political climate is very unfortunate. The way things have become, it's almost a "you're either with us or against us" mentality. In truth, most Americans reach across the aisle for one belief or another. For example, I identify strongly as a conservative, yet I think that religion has absolutely no place in government. Too many conservative political circles would throw me to the curb for "betraying" that one aspect of conservative principles. Only when you look at both sides (especially the side you most disagree with) objectively can you truly obtain the truth.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I don't know if the political discourse is all that much worse, it's just you can't pick your nose without it ending up on youtube. You see it a lot more than 20 years ago.
As far as media bias goes it's been there for decades because the media is dominated by liberals, it's just bled over into the news coverage since the 80's.
 
Top