Arizona Congresswoman Shot in the Head at Public Event

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by tater

So what? If you have a point with those pictures, compare them to polarization during every other US Administration. Have you read editorials written during the Adams Administration? What do you know about open rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration? What about the years leading to the US Civil War?

US politics is no more polarized than ever.

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

American politics is like a sport for some people. They cheer on their team and boo the other guys. It's just that way.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

American politics is like a sport for some people. They cheer on their team and boo the other guys. It's just that way.

Give the politicians weapons and throw them in the arena.
There, no need for political discourse or compromise. Only one wins all.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

All politics is polarized unless there is basically no difference between them. Perhaps you are used to in effect single-party rule. The US system has been "polarized" since President Washington. Weapons are in fact much harder to come by now, too. Until the mid-20th century virtually no weapon was forbidden for private ownership, so any loon could choose to be as well armed as the military.

If you want to show that something is worse NOW, then demonstrate that it is so vs the rest of US electoral history (good luck with that).

This was instantly politicized, and yes, more by the left than the right (presumably that sheriff is a D as he's blamed talk radio now, too, with zero evidence). I have seen some news, and blaming rhetoric is on every network as a possibility—and it should not even be out there for discussion as they have ZERO facts at this point. Any story even talking about this WRT political discourse is nothing but speculation—not news. Facts, facts, facts.

When Ft Hood happened, the immediate call (from the press, and the White House) was to not jump to conclusions even though the shooter was a Muslim who was in contact with radicals, shouted allah akbar while murdering, etc. The immediate call in the wake of THIS shooting, OTOH, is to "tone down political speech" when there is zero evidence that such speech had anything to do with this. It is quite possible the guy is on the other side, too. Or more likely is so totally nuts he doesn't fit ANY side.

BTW, note that in the case of Hasan and Ft Hood, that AQ has been known to intentionally recruit people who are already mentally ill, or who have some mental deficit since they are easier to control. That is a case of a larger, political organization seeking out the mentally ill to do their violent bidding. NO political movement in the US is doing this. None at all. So this is not political, it's a mental health thing. If a shooter killed because he heard god telling him to, would that make all religion responsible? If a nut said that he heard voices—and the voice was Obama—telling him to, would Obama be responsible? No, it'd just be a sadly insane guy as this very likely is.

Note that this also means that he's just as crazy if he's in fact a leftist, and it's not more connected to crazy left nuts like moveon, kos, huffpo, etc than it would be to the Tea Party.

He's CRAZY. That's it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

All politics is polarized unless there is basically no difference between them. Perhaps you are used to in effect single-party rule. The US system has been "polarized" since President Washington. Weapons are in fact much harder to come by now, too. Until the mid-20th century virtually no weapon was forbidden for private ownership, so any loon could choose to be as well armed as the military.

If you want to show that something is worse NOW, then demonstrate that it is so vs the rest of US electoral history (good luck with that).

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

That's impossible, the US is more polarized than ever, and there are no duels NOW!

As the story which is the life of Jared Loughner becomes more clear it is evident that politics is less likely the reason for his actions. What his motives were are unclear but politics don't seem to be the proximate cause.

The US political discourse has always been polarizing.

.......[a] violent episode in congressional history took place in this chamber on May 22, 1856. The Senate was not in session when South Carolina Representative Preston S. Brooks entered the chamber to avenge the insults that Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner ........

[Skybird]

Well, what now, tater, you need to choose which one it should be:

Originally Posted by tater

It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

or rather this:

Originally Posted by tater

That's impossible, the US is more polarized than ever, and there are no duels NOW!

Well: words do matter for sure.

Regardless of the motives of the assassin, the debate is urgently needed. The political radicalization in the US has reached a point that is unworthy of a democratic state. More than any others, the members of the Tea Party movement made rhetoric of war into normal discourse ..."

"It speaks volumes that Tea Party members and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin removed crude imagery from their websites in a hurry on Saturday ..."
----------
Giffords' name will be written in blood in the history of the United States. It was the first such incident since the attack on President Reagan almost 30 years ago. This murderous attack came from an atmosphere of discord and self-doubt, because America is experiencing the limits of its power on a daily basis, whether it be on distant fronts or with dissatisfaction at home. It has never been like this. There always was the motto: "Yes, we can." Today, widespread pessimism prevails, because of the financial crisis, and because of Iraq and Afghanistan, all lost battles ..."

"Sarah Palin put on her website Giffords' district with a target on it. What was meant metaphorically has become a bloody reality ... After the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, Americans are looking in a mirror that is blurred by hate and fear. That is not America. They need to ask themselves, and they are not alone, how to go about self-reconciliation.
-----------
America is appalled, and for the first time has stepped back. The attack in Tucson aimed a spotlight on how pure hatred has set the tone in the US. This happened, incidentally, before the rise of the Tea Party movement. The moment the first elected black president moved into the White House, the right began comparing him to Hitler, and calling him a socialist and the anti-Christ ..."
-------------
First and foremost, the spokespeople of the right, such as Sarah Palin, have poisoned the atmosphere with aggressive verbiage. They routinely portray their political opponents as domestic enemies. They compare the resistance against the policies of a democratically elected president to the colonists' fight for independence from the British. They predict the demise of the nation, if the Democrats are not defeated."
"But above all, they use frivolous images of armed violence: After political setbacks they speak first of their need to 'reload.' They have even marked districts of their political opponents with crosshair targets on maps on their websites."
"America has been repeatedly afflicted with political violence: the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s, and the gruesome attacks on Oklahoma City and in Atlanta during the Olympic games in the 1990s. After the tragedy in Tucson, the writing is on the wall again. One should hope that the leaders of the political right in the US recognize the deadly power words can really have. The time has come for them to stop. Otherwise, America might sink into a spiral of violence."

What is said in the Bible!? If you sow wind, you will reap storm.

So better use less windy words and manners.

Rethorics never are a replacement for aregument. Most of the time they indeed cover the lack of argument, they have an inherent deceptive nature. That is what makes them a cheating trick, appealing not to the intellect but to lower archaic instincts and just sentiments.

[tater]

I was being facetious, skybird. That was a JOKE. If US political discourse WAS more polarized, then we WOULD have duels now. We DID have duels in the past, so clearly it was at least as polarized AND more violent.

Even bringing up political rhetoric in a news story related to this shooting is clear bias since there are NO FACTS to support that as even a theory. Bringing it up is making it something to consider, when there is nothing there. It's an attempt, in fact, to create political motives where no specifics are known to exist.

The removal of images is not because there is ANY cause and effect, but because the media has, and will continue to paint this as some sort of viable theory in the face of zero evidence. What has the perp said as far as his motive? Prove a link, or STFU (that's a message to the media). I saw his videos, there is nothing there.

It's the act of a nut until proved otherwise.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by tater

We DID have duels in the past, so clearly it was at least as polarized AND more violent.

Was it more violent because politics were more polarized, or because life itself was more violent?

[CaptainHaplo]

First and foremost, the spokespeople of the right, such as Sarah Palin, have poisoned the atmosphere with aggressive verbiage.They routinely portray their political opponents as domestic enemies.

Funny - when has the right used the word "enemies"? The left has:

Obama responded: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101101/..._obama_enemies

But of course - its a truism that usually when one side accuses the other of something - they are in fact the ones that are doing it. The right says stand on the constitution - the left says anyone who doesn't do what we want is an enemy - and its the right that is evil and hatemongering. The left says anyone who disagrees is racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a slaver, while the right says sit down and lets talk about merits of the arguement.....

Yea - its all the right's fault.......

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But of course - its a truism that usually when one side accuses the other of something - they are in fact the ones that are doing it. The right says stand on the constitution - the left says anyone who doesn't do what we want is an enemy

In fairness, the right categorizes those that do not agree as un-American and dangerous as well. You are correct about the intentions of the left, but depicting the right as people that placidly stand on truth and justice is inaccurate; they are warped as well, but in the opposite direction.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

It wouldn't be without constitutional precedent.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

It wouldn't be without constitutional precedent.

Constitutional? Perhaps you mean historical.

BTW, combat by agreement is illegal in most, if not all states.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Constitutional? Perhaps you mean historical.

Note:

The observational is sometimes more important than the subjective.