RE: Tucson and the Media

RE: Tucson and the Media (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 1:51:21 PM)
everyone should read dk's link to fox to see how much he is twisting it. Not an honest bone in dk's body.

Moonhead -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 1:58:36 PM)
While we're insisting on honesty, explain how I'm an antisemite.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 3:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Now don't go mentioning the Unibomber, Will. Ken is working very hard to make this all about loonies Phil Laak is definitely loonie, but with a gf like Jennifer Tilley who cares! Of course the whole notion of "media inspired violence" is lunacy to start with.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 3:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ It is ingenuous (not to say fucking stupid) for people who characterize their political opponents as neo-Nazis and racists to pretend with mock innocence that they are not complicit in the violence that afflicts us simply because they have not explicitly "advocated" it. Advocating violence isn't nearly as effective as provoking it. K. True enough...and there are provocateurs on both sides. However, their effectiveness as provocateurs of violence seems to involve those...on the left and right...who have mental issues to begin with.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 3:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I find it ironic that a group of people that tends toward the idea of "personal responsibility for your actions" for their dominants/submissives would go along with the idea that somehow hate speech from the right produces violence. I find it pathetic that anyone who has spent their life exposed to modern media believes propoganda does not affect people's actions. Those on the fringe of sanity...losers...sure. The case you cite below is a perfect example of just such a loser. quote: Again, no one has stated that the radical right wing engages in violence. What is at question...at least originally...is whether or not the speech heard on talk radio can be the primary factor in inciting that violence. I have yet to see one demonstration of a monologue...or even a series of monologues...by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity (they being the ones most often cited) being the direct, "proven" (as tazzy likes to state when questioning a statement of proof by a conservative) link to their violence. Statements by the perpetrators as to these folks being the cause of the perpetrators' actions? Transcripts of statements by those cited in which they urged violence? Byron Williams. Byron Williams himself cites Beck as his reason for his actions. Again, let's see the transcript in which Beck urged ANYONE to go out and commit violence. It will be interesting to see what happens when he goes to court...if he tries the "media made me do it" defense...and whether or not the court buys that. Again, I ask the question which none of you seem to want to answer...if the media is such a big influence and a dangerous one, do you advocate doing the same thing with movies, games, books, that you want done with radio? First let me make clear I don't advocate the government doing anything about right wing hate media, whether it is radio, TV, the net, books etc.. All I'm looking for is for the right wing to own their behaviour. As to Beck inciting violence, 6/10/2010 quote: You're going to have to shoot them in the head http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BLaeQ600 Feb 2010 Beck at CPAC calls progressives a cancer and should be treated as such. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/glenn-beck-cpac-2010-spee_n_470356.html A lot more is out there. A simple google of 'beck violent rhetoric' will get you tons of examples. From the Huff and Puff Post...yes, that is definitely an objective source and I am sure they wrote the story from a completely non-biased, fully within context (much like your quote from Fox News), neutral stance. As for the right wing to own their behavior...if what you are wanting is for anyone on the right to state "Yes, our speech/actions/movies have caused someone to commit violence", I am afraid you are out of luck. Because there are plenty of people...right and left...who don't believe that speech incites violence, except in those cases where you have nutcases looking for something to hang their actions on. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for an apology or explanation from any of the liberal new sources who were stating that Sarah Palin OR talk show hosts OR the sheriff were at fault for Loughner's actions, despite people who know him...family and friends...coming forward this week and stating he was non-political. Despite evidence of his growing nuttiness over the last several years becoming worse and worse because it became scarier and scarier, without political overtones. Despite evidence that the sheriff's department...who dealt with Loughner several times over various episodes committed at his school...never dealt with him as a "dangerous right-wing nut", in fact...kept releasing him to society. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for conciliatory actions from a certain leftist Congressman...the one who stood on the floor of the House two days ago and compared Rebublicans to Nazis for their repudiation of Obamacare. The one who likened their behavior as similar to Goebbels.

DomKen -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 4:08:14 PM)
Actually the huffington post link has the video of his entire speech so there goes that defence. As to luckydawg telling lies as usual, here is the whole quote with extra special ironic final paragraph as an extra bonus quote: Just because you in Washington and you who are so out of touch with life in the media, just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean nobody else does. We do. You know why you're confused by this show? It's because I believe in something. You don't. Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends. You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you. They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about. Here is my advice when you're dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say. This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head.

DomKen -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 4:22:39 PM)
Another peace loving conservative: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/libertarian-guns-boston/

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 4:36:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets, and the rest are socialists, so its only a matter of style. In many ways the backdoor socialism of the Blowbama administration is MORE insidious than the outright communism of the far left. (The latest example being the inteference with Comcast buying a controlling interest in NBC. You don't have to own something to control it far beyond what the government was intended to control.) And you might want to point out the "wacky conspiracy theories" from LD. Must have missed em.

DomKen -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 4:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And you might want to point out the "wacky conspiracy theories" from LD. Must have missed em. The reference was to Beck.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 5:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And you might want to point out the "wacky conspiracy theories" from LD. Must have missed em. The reference was to Beck. Ahhhh. I don't know anything about GB except what I read here, and I know better than to accept that characterization from the left side of this board.

eihwaz -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 8:09:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets... What are these "communist tenets" in which you purport a segment of Democrats believe? Can you provide examples?

luckydawg -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 8:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the huffington post link has the video of his entire speech so there goes that defence. As to luckydawg telling lies as usual, here is the whole quote with extra special ironic final paragraph as an extra bonus quote: Just because you in Washington and you who are so out of touch with life in the media, just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean nobody else does. We do. You know why you're confused by this show? It's because I believe in something. You don't. Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends. You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you. They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about. Here is my advice when you're dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say. This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. No, if you read the link Beck is talking to Obama, Pelosi, and other mainstream Democrats, regarding thier alliance with hard left groups and figures that have used violence in the past and advocated revolution. just read the link, the whole thing. dk is cutting parts out intentionally. To prove a false point. Standard MO.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 8:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets, and the rest are socialists, so its only a matter of style. In many ways the backdoor socialism of the Blowbama administration is MORE insidious than the outright communism of the far left. (The latest example being the inteference with Comcast buying a controlling interest in NBC. You don't have to own something to control it far beyond what the government was intended to control.) And you might want to point out the "wacky conspiracy theories" from LD. Must have missed em. That makes as much sense as saying "About 30% of the Republicans furthest to the right are Nazis. the rest are Fascists." In other words. Both are bullshit cause I ain't no Fascist.

luckydawg -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 8:25:22 PM)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How are the Republicans able to push things through when they had less than 60 senators but somehow we can't? JONES: Well, the answer to that is they're (EXPLETIVE). (END VIDEO CLIPS) GLENN BECK, HOST: OK. America, here is why I think this has really been a problem for most Americans — I think this has been a problem, because, do you see Bill Clinton as a communist? I don't. As a revolutionary? Do you see Joe Biden? Please, anybody who gets hair plugs isn't a revolutionary. They're not. And so, it hasn't connected with people. But when you hear this language, you can say yes. But you're having a hard time putting them together. I forgot about the Black Flag Movement. See, this doesn't work. The Clintons, Bidens, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi — they're not Nazis and they're not communists. It doesn't work, OK? And this is where it has been confusing. I put it next to Van Jones? Yes. Bill Ayers? Yes. Dohrn, his wife? Yes. Jeff Jones? Sure. Jodie Evans from Code Pink? You bet. Andy Stern? You bet. They're all on record saying it. What's happened here is the politicians have been using these people as fuel. These people. Bill Ayers didn't do enough. Dohrn has said she wanted a violent revolution to collapse the American system. These people believe in that. ....... Because here's what's happening: they're going to — one side is going to eat the other. The Democratic Party is at each other's throats. They have to appease these people because they promised them. Do you think Bill Clinton actually has gotten together with Van Jones and said, you know, he was part of this reclaiming revolution thing, this STORM, and, you know, I hadn't thought about revolution in America, I think that would be pretty good? Are you kidding me? My guess is: Clinton met with Van Jones and said, OK, he's got some crazy ideas. But you know what? You know what — if we triangulate....... all from dks link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BLaeQ600

Aylee -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/20/2011 8:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets... What are these "communist tenets" in which you purport a segment of Democrats believe? Can you provide examples? A guess, and it is one, is that he is referring to the "46" or so "Tenants" to convert a country that is capitalism to communism or something. I have heard the phrasing, but I have never received a pamphlet. “Any call to cool ‘inflammatory’ speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power.” Slate’s Jack Shafer **The words are in quotes because I am trying to remember what it refers to, I do not have the title.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/21/2011 12:23:29 PM)
God, I don't know what the hell is wrong with me the last few days when it comes to doing these. Once again, CORRECTION of POST quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I find it ironic that a group of people that tends toward the idea of "personal responsibility for your actions" for their dominants/submissives would go along with the idea that somehow hate speech from the right produces violence. I find it pathetic that anyone who has spent their life exposed to modern media believes propoganda does not affect people's actions. Those on the fringe of sanity...losers...sure. The case you cite below is a perfect example of just such a loser. quote: Again, no one has stated that the radical right wing engages in violence. What is at question...at least originally...is whether or not the speech heard on talk radio can be the primary factor in inciting that violence. I have yet to see one demonstration of a monologue...or even a series of monologues...by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity (they being the ones most often cited) being the direct, "proven" (as tazzy likes to state when questioning a statement of proof by a conservative) link to their violence. Statements by the perpetrators as to these folks being the cause of the perpetrators' actions? Transcripts of statements by those cited in which they urged violence? Byron Williams. Byron Williams himself cites Beck as his reason for his actions. Again, let's see the transcript in which Beck urged ANYONE to go out and commit violence. It will be interesting to see what happens when he goes to court...if he tries the "media made me do it" defense...and whether or not the court buys that. Again, I ask the question which none of you seem to want to answer...if the media is such a big influence and a dangerous one, do you advocate doing the same thing with movies, games, books, that you want done with radio? quote: First let me make clear I don't advocate the government doing anything about right wing hate media, whether it is radio, TV, the net, books etc.. All I'm looking for is for the right wing to own their behaviour. As to Beck inciting violence, 6/10/2010 quote: You're going to have to shoot them in the head http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BLaeQ600 Feb 2010 Beck at CPAC calls progressives a cancer and should be treated as such. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/glenn-beck-cpac-2010-spee_n_470356.html A lot more is out there. A simple google of 'beck violent rhetoric' will get you tons of examples. From the Huff and Puff Post...yes, that is definitely an objective source and I am sure they wrote the story from a completely non-biased, fully within context (much like your quote from Fox News), neutral stance. As for the right wing to own their behavior...if what you are wanting is for anyone on the right to state "Yes, our speech/actions/movies have caused someone to commit violence", I am afraid you are out of luck. Because there are plenty of people...right and left...who don't believe that speech incites violence, except in those cases where you have nutcases looking for something to hang their actions on. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for an apology or explanation from any of the liberal new sources who were stating that Sarah Palin OR talk show hosts OR the sheriff were at fault for Loughner's actions, despite people who know him...family and friends...coming forward this week and stating he was non-political. Despite evidence of his growing nuttiness over the last several years becoming worse and worse because it became scarier and scarier, without political overtones. Despite evidence that the sheriff's department...who dealt with Loughner several times over various episodes committed at his school...never dealt with him as a "dangerous right-wing nut", in fact...kept releasing him to society. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for conciliatory actions from a certain leftist Congressman...the one who stood on the floor of the House two days ago and compared Rebublicans to Nazis for their repudiation of Obamacare. The one who likened their behavior as similar to Goebbels.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/21/2011 12:24:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I find it ironic that a group of people that tends toward the idea of "personal responsibility for your actions" for their dominants/submissives would go along with the idea that somehow hate speech from the right produces violence. I find it pathetic that anyone who has spent their life exposed to modern media believes propoganda does not affect people's actions. Those on the fringe of sanity...losers...sure. The case you cite below is a perfect example of just such a loser. quote: Again, no one has stated that the radical right wing engages in violence. What is at question...at least originally...is whether or not the speech heard on talk radio can be the primary factor in inciting that violence. I have yet to see one demonstration of a monologue...or even a series of monologues...by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity (they being the ones most often cited) being the direct, "proven" (as tazzy likes to state when questioning a statement of proof by a conservative) link to their violence. Statements by the perpetrators as to these folks being the cause of the perpetrators' actions? Transcripts of statements by those cited in which they urged violence? Byron Williams. Byron Williams himself cites Beck as his reason for his actions. Again, let's see the transcript in which Beck urged ANYONE to go out and commit violence. It will be interesting to see what happens when he goes to court...if he tries the "media made me do it" defense...and whether or not the court buys that. Again, I ask the question which none of you seem to want to answer...if the media is such a big influence and a dangerous one, do you advocate doing the same thing with movies, games, books, that you want done with radio? quote: First let me make clear I don't advocate the government doing anything about right wing hate media, whether it is radio, TV, the net, books etc.. All I'm looking for is for the right wing to own their behaviour. As to Beck inciting violence, 6/10/2010 quote: You're going to have to shoot them in the head http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BLaeQ600 Feb 2010 Beck at CPAC calls progressives a cancer and should be treated as such. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/glenn-beck-cpac-2010-spee_n_470356.html A lot more is out there. A simple google of 'beck violent rhetoric' will get you tons of examples. From the Huff and Puff Post...yes, that is definitely an objective source and I am sure they wrote the story from a completely non-biased, fully within context (much like your quote from Fox News), neutral stance. As for the right wing to own their behavior...if what you are wanting is for anyone on the right to state "Yes, our speech/actions/movies have caused someone to commit violence", I am afraid you are out of luck. Because there are plenty of people...right and left...who don't believe that speech incites violence, except in those cases where you have nutcases looking for something to hang their actions on. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for an apology or explanation from any of the liberal new sources who were stating that Sarah Palin OR talk show hosts OR the sheriff were at fault for Loughner's actions, despite people who know him...family and friends...coming forward this week and stating he was non-political. Despite evidence of his growing nuttiness over the last several years becoming worse and worse because it became scarier and scarier, without political overtones. Despite evidence that the sheriff's department...who dealt with Loughner several times over various episodes committed at his school...never dealt with him as a "dangerous right-wing nut", in fact...kept releasing him to society. Just the same way as you are out of luck in waiting for conciliatory actions from a certain leftist Congressman...the one who stood on the floor of the House two days ago and compared Rebublicans to Nazis for their repudiation of Obamacare. The one who likened their behavior as similar to Goebbels.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/21/2011 2:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets... What are these "communist tenets" in which you purport a segment of Democrats believe? Can you provide examples? Read Das Kapital, or the Cliff Notes of it.

mnottertail -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/21/2011 2:40:05 PM)
Yeah, talking out his ass again, he is illiterate as well as incompetent and illogical, so we already know he can't read, all you have to do to convince yourself of that is look him up under the laffer curve here. He has no clue what democrats believe unless he is breathing it out of rushes ass.

Moonhead -> RE: Tucson and the Media (1/21/2011 2:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is his usual equating of Democrats with Communists and his wacky conspiracy theory BS. The telling detail is he calls for the members of the Tea Party to shoot the Democrats in the head. About 30% of Democrats furthest to the left believe in communist tenets... What are these "communist tenets" in which you purport a segment of Democrats believe? Can you provide examples? Read Das Kapital, or the Cliff Notes of it. So you can't provide examples, then? Citing a case of a Democrat who's been either talking up Marxist principles, or even propounding them, rather than coming across as a slightly less neocon monetarist than the bulk of Republicans would be a good start to that. If you've read Das Kapital, I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of this third of Democrats doing that.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875