Gabrielle Giffords is the victim of a debased political culture

dblboggie wrote:The political campaign rhetoric of 19th century America was every bit as overblown and aggressively partisan as it is today, if not more so. Talk radio didn’t “spawn” this language whatsoever.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I'm not really sure that issue is all that important. The point of the article is that media personalities on the left and right, so desperate to demonise and parody their opponents are creating an unhealthy obsession with seeing "enemies of America" everywhere. If we believed such personalities, the rest of the world would be of the opinion that each of your elections is a struggle between whether it is the Communist or the Theocrat Party who can tamper with the most ballot boxes to rig the election.

dblboggie wrote:Again, I respectfully disagree. The very headline of the article (which is the subject title of this thread) is blaming political rhetoric for Gifford’s shooting. And yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The perpetrator of this act, as we are now learning, was not politically motivated and did not listen to talk radio or follow politics on TV. These facts make the headline and the entire premise of the article a false one.

cable2 wrote:dblboggie, I respectfully disagree.. the debate never was about the killer acting on the instructions of a political group.. the debate was on the effect of the hatred poured out by all sides of America's extreme politicos.. one only has to remember that the sheriff questioned to the right wing hate speech when he first spoke about the shooting.. one only has to remember the parents of the shoot woman saying they hated the tea-party when asked if they hated any one for the shooting.. it is with such a background of political hate, that all these debates held.. and as such the shootings and the political hate speech can and should be spoken of in the same breath.. but not as being the same thing.

dblboggie wrote:While you are certainly free to disagree, you are wrong about the debate here. Our debate, the one Matt and I are having in this thread, is on the article titled: “Gabrielle Giffords is the victim of a debased political culture.” The title makes it quite clear that the political culture is at least culpable in Giffords’ shooting. If you are going to contribute to an ongoing debate, you might wish to review the entire thread to get ginned in on what is being debated. In this case, I posited that the author of the referenced article was biased and that the evidence for that was the fact that only conservative political speech was examined, even though the articles title and one small passing reference to a single leftist political talker imply that it is speech from both sides of the debate that contribute to the “debased political culture.”

dblboggie wrote:However, addressing your disagreement above, I still say that your conclusion is wrong. The shooting of Giffords had nothing to do with the political rhetoric of the day as the killer was not a follower of political talk radio or TV and was, in fact, clearly insane. He had an undefined beef with Giffords going back to long before Palin was a known political figure or the existence of the Tea Party. Now, if you can think of another such murder that was, in fact, politically motivated, then you might have a case. Otherwise, your statement above is off the mark.

cable2 wrote:

"The political campaign rhetoric of 19th century America was every bit as overblown and aggressively partisan as it is today, if not more so."

and as such American historian dblboggie, I am sure you would be the first to admit that 19th century America political hate speech.. had murderous effect of many Amerians, even if few where instructed to carry out murders by any political group.

dblboggie wrote:Oh really? And would you have specific examples of this?

cable2 wrote:please read.. no one ever said the killer was acting on the instructions of a political group.. but that killing took place in a world where the political hate speech had stained the every day life.. it had stained America to the point where the lady's parents blamed the Tea-Party for staining their daughter by their hate speech.. it had stained America to the point where the sheriff also found the Tea-Party's hate speeches had colored the world the shooting took place in.

if you did not.. do not, like what her parents or the sheriff had to say.. the you should attack them and not the world's media for bring that debate to it's readers.

cable2 wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Oh really? And would you have specific examples of this?

O' Golly Gum Drops.. have you forgotten the anti-Chinese league and the unknown numbers who died in the heat of political hate speeches.. then you have the Italians and Jews, each group the point of many a political hate speech.. then add the Negro and the Native Americans amongst others.. you would agree that political hate speeches had a whole raft of peoples as their target.

cable2 wrote:please read.. no one ever said the killer was acting on the instructions of a political group.. but that killing took place in a world where the political hate speech had stained the every day life.. it had stained America to the point where the lady's parents blamed the Tea-Party for staining their daughter by their hate speech.. it had stained America to the point where the sheriff also found the Tea-Party's hate speeches had colored the world the shooting took place in.

if you did not.. do not, like what her parents or the sheriff had to say.. the you should attack them and not the world's media for bring that debate to it's readers.

dblboggie wrote:You seem to be purposely missing the point here. I was not debating political dialogues role in our currently divisive political climate. And I have had nothing whatsoever to say about the sheriff or Giffords’ parents – so I have no clue why you insist on dragging that into this debate – or in a response to me, as I have only been debating the bias of the article from whence this thread derives its name. That article’s author is biased against the right, as is obvious for all the reasons I have laid out above.

cable2 wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Oh really? And would you have specific examples of this?

O' Golly Gum Drops.. have you forgotten the anti-Chinese league and the unknown numbers who died in the heat of political hate speeches.. then you have the Italians and Jews, each group the point of many a political hate speech.. then add the Negro and the Native Americans amongst others.. you would agree that political hate speeches had a whole raft of peoples as their target.

dblboggie wrote:You know cable, when you use terms like “O’ Golly Gum Drops,” “O’Golly Gosh,” “Mayhaps,” or “Methinks,” it is quite apparent what you are attempting to do. These things and your “cutsie” misuses of English like “is you a saying” “I’s” etc, is being done in a purposely mocking way which is meant to goad one into a flame war. English may not be your first language, but I can tell the difference between simple grammatical mistakes and a deliberate misuse of English to goad.

I, and others here, have gone out of our way to keep our debates civil in tone this year. It would be nice if you might join along in that effort.

To answer your point, each of the examples you cite are cases of racist, not political, hate speech. There is a difference.

cable2 wrote:And mayhap if you used “Golly Gosh” when talking to your mates life would not look so black.. Cos it would look like any thing I says as you loading up for the flame war you sees in each and every post I post.. And by the by “O' Golly Gosh me old mate.. me old fruit.. me old cabbage patch leaf holder's assistant” would have any one, every one falling about laughing where I comes from..

cable2 wrote:O' Golly Gosh me old mate.. me old fruit.. me old cabbage patch leaf holder's assistant.. If me could not use my every day language just cos you don’t like it.. I would find it hard to join in with your level of debate.. And mayhap if you used “Golly Gosh” when talking to your mates life would not look so black.. Cos it would look like any thing I says as you loading up for the flame war you sees in each and every post I post.. And by the by “O' Golly Gosh me old mate.. me old fruit.. me old cabbage patch leaf holder's assistant” would have any one, every one falling about laughing where I comes from.. No battle lines, no war only great warm hearted entertainment.

now you's got your today's flame war comment off your chest, mayhap you would like to return to your dismissal of today's political hate speech cos the political hate speeches of the 19th Cent was worse.. Me's not such how that works.

are you saying the anti-Chinese league was not political.. laws covering the American-Chinese in the 19th Cent, where only removed in the 1970's-80's such as the question of who a American-Chinese could or cold not marry.. Or are you trying to say the treatment of Negros in the 19th Cent was also not political.. if I'm not wrong, was not the Negros question part of the reason why America had a internal war in the 19th Cent. and so on with each and every group I mentioned.. And I’m not an American history buff.