Originally Posted By Donny Did President Obama once say of Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” ??? ANSWER : Yes he did <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouchables/" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2011/...chables/</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry There is a continuum between something being purely a metaphor and something to be taken literally, with all variations of degree in between. Where you do think President Obama's use of that phrase would fall on that continuum? What about when Sharon Angle said: "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies... I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
Originally Posted By fkurucz I also think that to say "If someone threatens us with a knife ..." is very different than putting crosshairs over the lotal opposition and calling them the enemy of the American people (especially when they were elected by the American people). I used to be a Republican and I left the party in horror once the blinders came off and I saw it for what it had really become. I am now an independent, and it can be hard to decide who to vote for at times as often neither candidate is viable. That said, its very rare to find a GOP candidate who doesn't spout the retread pro-offshoring, anti-family, anti-education, anti-middle class, pro big business rhetoric.
Originally Posted By Mr X You know, I actually tried to find a full transcript of that "if they bring a knife" comment, and damned if it wasn't very difficult to find! (I tried, but not particularly thoroughly, I might try again later) But interestingly, most references on Google to that comment are very recent, and in reference to Tuscon and the "attack" on conservatives. Interesting because apparently the conservatives didn't care enough about it when it was said to care much (there was a page or two of reaction from the McCain campaign over "all the sudden negativity!", but again with no full transcript to offer up any context). Apparently it wasn't of much importance until they (the right wing) needed to dredge up some "dirt" in an effort to countermand the Palin targets and Angle "Second Amendment Solutions!" dreck, and that's all they could come up with so they ran with it. I would not claim that Obama's reference was necessarily in good taste (again, I'd love to see the whole speech somehow), but somehow it wasn't all that relevant TO THE RIGHT WING until they needed something to punch back with. OTOH, I can cite numerous examples of left wing outrage and anger towards the targets, the second amendment threats, and some of the other vitriol AS IT OCCURED, and not simply after something terrible happened (where, admittedly, some did jump off the handle and start pointing fingers without all the facts, but I fully agree with those who say the toxic climate we're living in does play a part in the insanity). By the way, here's the way Sarah Palin chose to talk about College Basketball (of all things!), in response to calls back then that she should tone down the nasty rhetoric (it reads very much like a "screw you, I'm doing it!" sort of retort, don't it???)... "To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season's targets! From the shot across the bow - the first second's tip-off - your leaders will be in the enemy's crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won't win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons - your Big Guns - to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win. Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn't work, parachute in. If the other side tries to push back, your attitude should be "go for it." Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you'll only win the war if you've picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!"
Originally Posted By Mr X You know, I actually tried to find a full transcript of that "if they bring a knife" comment, and damned if it wasn't very difficult to find! (I tried, but not particularly thoroughly, I might try again later) But interestingly, most references on Google to that comment are very recent, and in reference to Tuscon and the "attack" on conservatives. Interesting because apparently the conservatives didn't care enough about it when it was said to care much (there was a page or two of reaction from the McCain campaign over "all the sudden negativity!", but again with no full transcript to offer up any context). Apparently it wasn't of much importance until they (the right wing) needed to dredge up some "dirt" in an effort to countermand the Palin targets and Angle "Second Amendment Solutions!" dreck, and that's all they could come up with so they ran with it. I would not claim that Obama's reference was necessarily in good taste (again, I'd love to see the whole speech somehow), but somehow it wasn't all that relevant TO THE RIGHT WING until they needed something to punch back with. OTOH, I can cite numerous examples of left wing outrage and anger towards the targets, the second amendment threats, and some of the other vitriol AS IT OCCURED, and not simply after something terrible happened (where, admittedly, some did jump off the handle and start pointing fingers without all the facts, but I fully agree with those who say the toxic climate we're living in does play a part in the insanity). By the way, here's the way Sarah Palin chose to talk about College Basketball (of all things!), in response to calls back then that she should tone down the nasty rhetoric (it reads very much like a "screw you, I'm doing it!" sort of retort, don't it???)... "To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season's targets! From the shot across the bow - the first second's tip-off - your leaders will be in the enemy's crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won't win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons - your Big Guns - to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win. Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn't work, parachute in. If the other side tries to push back, your attitude should be "go for it." Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you'll only win the war if you've picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!"
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Sigh. So what's your point, Donny?>> To stir up trouble. He won't return to this thread. He rarely does. I'm still waiting for him to give me proof that all of the MSNBC personalities lie on a regular basis. He made that claim weeks ago in another thread and never backed it up. I asked for proof beyond one lone example he gave of a mistake Rachel Maddow made and corrected the following night with an apology. But other than that one mistake, Donny couldn't provide any examples of lies deliberately being told by MSNBC show hosts, even though he claims they tell them all the time. This thread is another "hit and run" post of Donny's in an effort to prove the "both sides are equally bad" theory. He really hates the Dems and he'll do everything he can to "prove" how evil they are, while continuing to deny the violent rhetoric coming from the Republican politicians and pundits whom he continues to defend and support.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So what's your point, Donny? << Donny's point is patently obvious - it's a feeble attempt to draw a false equivalency between Obama's campaign comment in `08 to the insurrection and anti-government rhetoric of the conservative right. Obama's comment was a variation on the old "bringing a knife to a gunfight" cliche, and in no way measures up to the violent rhetoric and actions of conservative republicans and tea partiers. What I'm seeing is a defensive posture on the part of conservatives. They won't actually cop to the fact that their party is directly responsible for violent rhetoric and imagery - calling for "second amendment remedies" and targeting crosshairs on democratic opponents. And now that they're called to account, they blatantly lie and say they're "surveyor's marks". Donny and his ilk are only too happy to go with that rather than re-examine their own beliefs and the consequences that result. They'd rather not acknowledge the violent actions of their own - smashing offices, sending exploding packages, or even bringing weapons to political events. But they're only too happy to grasp at straws when it comes to the weak examples they trot out of democrats using strident language. But they NEED these false equivalencies to justify the inflamed rhetoric of their own party. This equivalency exists in their own head and among their fellow self deluded victims of conservative ideology. But here's the bottom line - there have been at least four violent outbursts involving death and destruction just since the `08 election. There was the shootout in Philadelphia that resulted in the deaths of three cops, the guy that flew the plane into the IRS building in Texas, the guy that shot up the Holocaust museum in DC, and another shootout in the bay area between cops and some nutcase who was whipped into a lethal rage by Glenn Beck's demogoguing over some obsucure left-wing foundation in SF. All of this against a back-drop of rhetoric from the right about how our government is illegitimate, accompanied by such comments as "armed and dangerous", "locked and loaded", "second amendment remedies" and plenty more. The fact is that these kinds of comments are reckless. And these comments are coming from the disgruntled right - NOT the left. Anybody who thinks any other way is only kidding themselves.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The blaming of the so-called "violent rhetoric" of conservative voices for these shootings is absurd. SO tired of it.
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's all blather. There is no way to link the Tuscon shooting with anything that has ever been said by a leading conservative. Yet since then blame has been pinned on conservatives. Absolutely absurd. There is no reason for them to accept accountability. I'm not a big Sarah Palin fan (I liked her at first but she's not proven to be a leader I'd choose,) but it's not her fault the shooting happened (or anyone but the shooter's. She had a really stupid and careless online poster that had nothing to do with the shooting.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Okay, this video is freakin' hilarious: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...epzqJvIw</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh So you really believe that it's all just a coincidence? The Palin map and the shooting? Yes, I do believe it's a coincidence.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Why do you suppose they took that graphic down immediately after the shooting? And what would the possible motivation be to flat-out lie and say they were "surveyors marks"? Hmmm?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Given this country's sad history of assassinations of political and social leaders, is there room, in 2011, for political rhetoric that puts gun sights over political rivals? Coincidence, bad luck, whatever, I'd say it's time to move beyond that sort of baiting, red-meat nastiness that Sarah Palin's stock and trade. Of course, she is hardly the only one to do this type of thing. Sarah Palin had an opportunity in this to legitimately deny any causation but also step up to be a real leader and declare that from this point forward, she'd help set a higher level of debate. She fumbled that opportunity because she couldn't get over herself. Same story, different day.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Even if it is a concidence, isn't it the responsible thing to do to start acting like respectful citizens and not like gun-crazy avengers? Words have meaning. Even if the shooting and the rhetoric are concidental, it's a wake up call to be responsible with words. You don't have to show responsibility in order to see that a change must be made. That kind of talk is dangerous and disrespectful regardless of whether or not someone actually follows it. Why is it right to suggest such a thing in any case?! Just because someone disagrees with you politically doesn't mean you have to dehumanize them and promote "second amendment remedies" to them being elected into office. It has to stop. It doesn't matter whether or not Jared Lee Loughner ever even heard the talk. It just needs to stop.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Why do you suppose they took that graphic down immediately after the shooting?> Because it HAD A TARGET WITH HER NAME ON IT. I'm glad they took it down. But I don't think it had any influence on what happened. <And what would the possible motivation be to flat-out lie and say they were "surveyors marks"? > I think that's plain ol' stupid. I repeat that I do not like Sarah Palin.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Coincidence, bad luck, whatever, I'd say it's time to move beyond that sort of baiting, red-meat nastiness that Sarah Palin's stock and trade. Of course, she is hardly the only one to do this type of thing.<< That's what I don't get. When someone says, "This shooting had nothing to do with conservative violent rhetoric!" isn't the implication that the person who says that is just fine with the rhetoric? Or in Josh's case, saying the "so-called" rhetoric, which suggests it's not violent rhetoric at all. Really? Reload isn't violent? Second Amendment remedies isn't rhetoric? It's absolutely true that there's no evidence that conservative violent rhetoric influenced the shooter. So why are conservatives more interested in pointing that out than in denouncing the rhetoric?
