But yeah, a guy sucker punching a Nazi is the same.
Fine comparison there!
(06-16-2017, 11:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: What happens when the POSTUS refuses to censure, or even ignore, unacceptable, in this case violent behavior?
This type of behavior has been being welcomed by Trump and his supporters since the campaign, She we can stop fine tuning the outrage toward the last guy who acts out.
Meanwhile I agree it needs to stop. Period.
Stop engaging in whataboutery, I've noticed it's a common tactic when you feel on the defensive.
Either you agree with the general point or you do not. As you seem to have agreed, pointing out other instances already covered by the point I made is a waste of all of our time.
(06-16-2017, 11:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: What happens when the POSTUS refuses to censure, or even ignore, unacceptable, in this case violent behavior?
This type of behavior has been being welcomed by Trump and his supporters since the campaign, She we can stop fine tuning the outrage toward the last guy who acts out.
Meanwhile I agree it needs to stop. Period.
My particular point is people recognizing these jackasses are on both sides. I think Nugent is an asshat. Even taking out the violence, I wouldn't want to be preached at about politics at a concert from any side. Put it in your music if you feel it, but I don't need the lectures when I'm trying to enjoy myself.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-16-2017, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My particular point is people recognizing these jackasses are on both sides. I think Nugent is an asshat. Even taking out the violence, I wouldn't want to be preached at about politics at a concert from any side. Put it in your music if you feel it, but I don't need the lectures when I'm trying to enjoy myself.
That is the frustrating part, when people just want to point to one side or the other and not recognize that it is/has been happening on their side as well. We've been seeing a lot of that in this thread and in society as a whole.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Quote:Ted Nugent says he’s seen the light after Virginia shooting: ‘We have got to be civil’
Facebook34.1KTwitterMore203
Ted Nugent interviewed by KENS-TV on Feb. 18, 2014.
Singer Ted Nugent claims that he has seen the light and will stop using toxic rhetoric to attack Democrats.
In a Thursday interview with 77WABC Radio, Nugent swore that he has “reevaluated” his language and would refrain from saying “anything that can be interpreted as condoning or referencing violence.”
“At the tender age of 69, my wife has convinced me I just can’t use those harsh terms,” he admitted. “I cannot and will not and I encourage even my friends/enemies on the left, in the Democrat and liberal world, that we have got to be civil to each other.” Nugent is well known for attacking Democrats, particularly former Secretary Hillary Clinton, former President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He once referred to the former president as “a piece of sh*t” and “sub-human mongrel” and urged him to “suck on my machine gun.” He then went on to encourage Clinton to “ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b*tch.” As for Sanders, Nugent said that the Democratic presidential candidate could “eat sh*t and die.”
Nugent earned criticism after comedian Kathy Griffin. “If you got mad at Kathy Griffin and didn’t say sh*t about Ted Nugent, you’re a hypocrite,” actor D.L. Hughley said after Griffin was fired from CNN. Listen to the full interview below:
Yes...both sides do it.
Yes...we are all tired of it.
Even Nugent (might have) realized it.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I do think it is interesting that the one guy in serious/critical condition is the guy who just did a speech about and is involved in the child trafficing/pedophile investigation.
Probably just happened by chance or maybe not. Who knows.
They have had tons of busts in this area and hopefully they are working their way up to the top to the elite/protected class.
Get the swamp cleaned out of this stuff. Would be interesting.
(06-16-2017, 12:39 AM)Vlad Wrote: Speaking of that liberal NY Times rag, they used this recent shooting as a reason to lie again.
In an equivalency editorial they blamed politics and Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting stating it was because of politics and Sarah Palin...yeah remember her and the leftist vitriol toward her?
The New York Times was not doing anything different from what you are doing in their the first version of the editorial--connecting dots between violent images used by Palin's campaign and the Giffords shooting. But when the connection could not be firmly established, they retracted the claim--unlike you.
(06-16-2017, 02:05 PM)Dill Wrote: The New York Times was not doing anything different from what you are doing in their the first version of the editorial--connecting dots between violent images used by Palin's campaign and the Giffords shooting. But when the connection could not be firmly established, they retracted the claim--unlike you.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-15-2017, 01:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not disagreeing with your post, but I just wanted to say that the world doesn't need to be full of moderates in order for there to be some civility in all of this. I have said before, I'm likely one of the more liberal people on here, but I am not partisan. If a Republican throws up a policy I agree with, I am all for it, and I openly criticize Democrats on a regular basis.
It's just a matter of thinking critically about the information you have and being able to present rational, logical arguments about it when discussing it with people. Being able to respect the opinions of others and discern opinion from fact. These things tend to get lost in a lot of discussions about politics, and this board is definitely no exception.
I don't see anything in my statement that indicates moderates are needed for civility in these types of discussions. My point about moderates is alienation. Someone from the right is overly aggressive, belittling or otherwise rude in stating their views towards a person on the left the result is the leftist is pushed further to their group thus even though verbally assaulted it reinforces their group mentality. Now flip the words right and left in that statement and it is still true. Moderates frequently face attacks from both sides and the nature of their views means they don't usually get pushed further into a group, instead they are further alienated. I didn't clarify that very well the first time because it isn't important to the intended meaning of the overall statement.
Talking about politics is important. Being offensive or otherwise aggressive about the views is counterproductive to that important activity. I do tend to do as your second paragraph says, usually. Hell, I even had actual discussions with FredToast where we disagreed but kept respectful with each other. But those things that you say get lost in a lot of discussions are becoming the norm instead of exception over the past few years (maybe 10). It may have changed over the past few months on this board but I see no evidence of it in the few threads I glanced at. I recall when PnR started on the original board. You were the first person I engaged in conversation with but there were many others that were capable of having a rational discussion. Eventually some of those people changed and those who didn't want meaningful discussion eventually became the only voices that could be heard.
You made a point about the current divisions being comparable to Antebellum, and that may be true. Unfortunately the only thing that seems to turn the tide back to people saying "even if we are different parties we are still Americans (or human if the discussion is among international people)" has been war. After the so called Civil War a concerted effort was made towards it. Following WWII most of the political leaders had a brotherhood of having served so even with political differences there was a bond they never let out of their sight. (oh yeah, those 4 terms for FDR were more divisive than most people know of now but why people don't know is too far off topic) I guess what I find disconcerting is instead of this shooting opening people's eyes to the need for national healing from the divisiveness we will end up seeing the same as the Giffords situation. Some people (but not all) paying lip service then going right back to the ugliness. And I saw Hannity and Pelosi both showing that ugliness while pretending to pay that lip service already. Probably others with national exposure have already done the same because some can't hide their true stripes.
(06-16-2017, 02:05 PM)Dill Wrote: The New York Times was not doing anything different from what you are doing in their the first version of the editorial--connecting dots between violent images used by Palin's campaign and the Giffords shooting. But when the connection could not be firmly established, they retracted the claim--unlike you.
Absolutely incorrect. The NYT editorial published information that had been disproven years ago. Reiterating false information, that has been known to be false for years, is absolutely nothing like what you are trying to compare it to. You want to give them credit for retracting a claim they knew to be false when they made it.
I see everyone condemn the actions but still defends the words that could have set him off.
Everyone is going to the extreme with their words. Things like that the Republican Health Care bill is going to kill seniors and children, that celebrities want to have the president shot or blow up the White House.
Now, I focus on the Lefts words because I'm on the Right and those on the Right will wheel out Teddy boy and his crossbow.
Lol, remember when Republicans brought out "Death Panels"?
The problem is, everyone is going to the extreme with their words and those who trust them have heard it so much, they start believe it's true. Words do have power and everyone needs to dial it back all the way to truthful.
(06-16-2017, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My particular point is people recognizing these jackasses are on both sides. I think Nugent is an asshat. Even taking out the violence, I wouldn't want to be preached at about politics at a concert from any side. Put it in your music if you feel it, but I don't need the lectures when I'm trying to enjoy myself.
I actually take Ted at his word until he gives me reason to believe otherwise. If he's willing to make an effort to moderate his tone then he should be commended, not attacked for past statements. It's more than almost anyone else has been willing to do on either side to curb the bullshit.
It seems like there was once a time in this country where people didn't feel the need to push their political beliefs on everyone else in a public, belligerent way. They believed what they believed and accepted that others did the same. Obviously there were outliers and examples of public dissent, but by and large you could interact with people without expecting an outburst. This time has passes apparently.
(06-16-2017, 04:30 PM)samhain Wrote: I actually take Ted at his word until he gives me reason to believe otherwise. If he's willing to make an effort to moderate his tone then he should be commended, not attacked for past statements. It's more than almost anyone else has been willing to do on either side to curb the bullshit.
It seems like there was once a time in this country where people didn't feel the need to push their political beliefs on everyone else in a public, belligerent way. They believed what they believed and accepted that others did the same. Obviously there were outliers and examples of public dissent, but by and large you could interact with people without expecting an outburst. This time has passes apparently.
I'd like to think so too, but it's hard to see him changing now any more than seeing 70 year old Trump suddenly not tweeting names and acting like a petulant child.
Many people called for a more reasonable dialogue before Nugent did...and as per usual folks like Ted suddenly have a change of heart when words lead to actions.
For example:
.@Judgenap: Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!
(06-16-2017, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My particular point is people recognizing these jackasses are on both sides. I think Nugent is an asshat. Even taking out the violence, I wouldn't want to be preached at about politics at a concert from any side. Put it in your music if you feel it, but I don't need the lectures when I'm trying to enjoy myself.
(06-16-2017, 12:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is the frustrating part, when people just want to point to one side or the other and not recognize that it is/has been happening on their side as well. We've been seeing a lot of that in this thread and in society as a whole.
I don't find "recognizing jackasses on both sides" to be particularly helpful, though it is certainly better than supposing only one side has jackasses. The most that could follow from this recognition is an exhortation to both sides to "stop it," the sort of admonition which rarely works. (Though I don't say "never".) But the claim is useless in helping anyone understand how we got to the current impasse between Democrats and Republicans.
In all my years of following politics, I have seen no evidence that one party is more partial to sex or corruption scandals than the other. Both sides certainly do it, and with a frequency which makes it hard to claim one does more than the other. Further, one can always find facebook posters or media commentators or an occasional Representative who says something odious, racist, sexist or whatever on either side.
But in my view, there is still a question of scale and of qualitative difference, and of origins. Saying that "all politicians lie" hardly captures the radical change in political rhetoric and behavior established by Trump at the national level. There are things that "both sides" don't do to nearly the same degree, practices I don't see both doing, and practices which began with one side, not the other. I don't think much will change without more specific criticism tied to examples and dates, and a re-affirmation of critical standards.
Just to provide three examples of what I am talking about:
1) in 1996, Newt Gingrich put out a memo to his fellow Republicans which contained a kind of lexicon of positive words for Republican policies and extreme and pejorative adjectives to be integrated into any discussion of "opponents." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm. And it was at this point, during the successive fruitless Clinton scandals, that the national political rhetoric changed towards its present heading, became qualitatively different from anything since WWII.
2) in 2000, Karl Rove devised "push polls" to discredit John McCain. The goal of such polls is not to gather information, but to plan negative information about a candidate--in this case, the suggestion that McCain had an illegitimate black child.
3) In 2016, as mainstream news organizations sought to fight fake news by publishing primers and re-affirming journalistic standards, Fox and friends went the other direction, embracing the term "fake news" and applying it in blanket form to the MSM, a tactic then quickly adopted by the current president. The point of this was not accurate description but uncritical, wholesale delegitimization of competing viewpoints via a permanent label. It was also their way of affirming "Both sides" do fake news, though both sides were not.
I should also add that the three examples above speak to organizational/institutional tactics, not simply the views of one individual. They had to be validated by groups of people in charge of the organization and then implemented. In each case the tactic established an organizational standard. The tactics have created some pressure on Democrats to adopt them to compete, but for the most part Dems have refused or discovered such tactics don't cross the aisle well.
Comparing anecdotes is certainly an exercises in futility which offers no basis for recognizing organizational tactics or national shifts in such tactics. But placing political behavior in an analytic framework that allows for systematic comparison, and recognition and elimination of double standards, does allow one to get a more secure grasp of the social causes of political extremism and so some chance of realistically addressing them.
(06-16-2017, 04:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't find "recognizing jackasses on both sides" to be particularly helpful, though it is certainly better than supposing only one side has jackasses. The most that could follow from this recognition is an exhortation to both sides to "stop it," the sort of admonition which rarely works. (Though I don't say "never".) But the claim is useless in helping anyone understand how we got to the current impasse between Democrats and Republicans.
In all my years of following politics, I have seen no evidence that one party is more partial to sex or corruption scandals than the other. Both sides certainly do it, and with a frequency which makes it hard to claim one does more than the other. Further, one can always find facebook posters or media commentators or an occasional Representative who says something odious, racist, sexist or whatever on either side.
But in my view, there is still a question of scale and of qualitative difference, and of origins. Saying that "all politicians lie" hardly captures the radical change in political rhetoric and behavior established by Trump at the national level. There are things that "both sides" don't do to nearly the same degree, practices I don't see both doing, and practices which began with one side, not the other. I don't think much will change without more specific criticism tied to examples and dates, and a re-affirmation of critical standards.
Just to provide three examples of what I am talking about:
1) in 1996, Newt Gingrich put out a memo to his fellow Republicans which contained a kind of lexicon of positive words for Republican policies and extreme and pejorative adjectives to be integrated into any discussion of "opponents." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm. And it was at this point, during the successive fruitless Clinton scandals, that the national political rhetoric changed towards its present heading, became qualitatively different from anything since WWII.
2) in 2000, Karl Rove devised "push polls" to discredit John McCain. The goal of such polls is not to gather information, but to plan negative information about a candidate--in this case, the suggestion that McCain had an illegitimate black child.
3) In 2016, as mainstream news organizations sought to fight fake news by publishing primers and re-affirming journalistic standards, Fox and friends went the other direction, embracing the term "fake news" and applying it in blanket form to the MSM, a tactic then quickly adopted by the current president. The point of this was not accurate description but uncritical, wholesale delegitimization of competing viewpoints via a permanent label. It was also their way of affirming "Both sides" do fake news, though both sides were not.
I should also add that the three examples above speak to organizational/institutional tactics, not simply the views of one individual. They had to be validated by groups of people in charge of the organization and then implemented. In each case the tactic established an organizational standard. The tactics have created some pressure on Democrats to adopt them to compete, but for the most part Dems have refused or discovered such tactics don't cross the aisle well.
Comparing anecdotes is certainly an exercises in futility which offers no basis for recognizing organizational tactics or national shifts in such tactics. But placing political behavior in an analytic framework that allows for systematic comparison, and recognition and elimination of double standards, does allow one to get a more secure grasp of the social causes of political extremism and so some chance of realistically addressing them.
Translation, it's all the Republicans fault. Dressing up partisanship only hides what it is to people not paying attention.
(06-16-2017, 03:06 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I see everyone condemn the actions but still defends the words that could have set him off.
Everyone is going to the extreme with their words. Things like that the Republican Health Care bill is going to kill seniors and children, that celebrities want to have the president shot or blow up the White House.
Now, I focus on the Lefts words because I'm on the Right and those on the Right will wheel out Teddy boy and his crossbow.
Lol, remember when Republicans brought out "Death Panels"?
The problem is, everyone is going to the extreme with their words and those who trust them have heard it so much, they start believe it's true. Words do have power and everyone needs to dial it back all the way to truthful.
Eh, maybe I just haven't noticed, but what lawmakers or actual news sources have said the republican healthcare plan would kill people. I do recall republican talk about obamacares death panels, but I haven't heard the left saying similar. I would be interested to see it coming from a reputable source.
(06-16-2017, 05:29 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, maybe I just haven't noticed, but what lawmakers or actual news sources have said the republican healthcare plan would kill people. I do recall republican talk about obamacares death panels, but I haven't heard the left saying similar. I would be interested to see it coming from a reputable source.
(06-16-2017, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely incorrect. The NYT editorial published information that had been disproven years ago. Reiterating false information, that has been known to be false for years, is absolutely nothing like what you are trying to compare it to. You want to give them credit for retracting a claim they knew to be false when they made it.
False equivalency strikes again.
First, the point of the editorial was that "more guns" was not the solution to shootings, as some had been advocating.
It's not clear that they "knew" the information about loughner was unsubstantiated, though the editors might be sloppy for not reviewing the case. And failure to establish a connection is not "disproving" a link. Loughner was clearly a consumer of right wing conspiracy theories, especially from Alex Jones, one of Trump's sources. The editors went to Palin because of a pamphlet that clearly referenced "targeting" (and I add that I did not have a problem with Palin's pamphlet).t
So it is not "absolutely incorrect" to analogize the editor's thinking to Vlads, and add that they corrected theirs. How do you know that Vlad doesn't know his claims are false?
(06-16-2017, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: First, the point of the editorial was that "more guns" was not the solution to shootings, as some had been advocating.
It's not clear that they "knew" the information about loughner was unsubstantiated, though the editors might be sloppy for not reviewing the case. And failure to establish a connection is not "disproving" a link. Loughner was clearly a consumer of right wing conspiracy theories, especially from Alex Jones, one of Trump's sources. The editors went to Palin because of a pamphlet that clearly referenced "targeting" (and I add that I did not have a problem with Palin's pamphlet).
Sorry, no. The NYT's itself acknowledged the information was false, so this isn't in dispute. As to the author, if they didn't know whether the information was true or false they should engage in something called fact checking. After all, that is their job. So your defense of them is that the were either willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent. Neither speaks well for the author or the NYT's for failing to catch the error.
Quote:So it is not "absolutely incorrect" to analogize the editor's thinking to Vlads, and add that they corrected theirs. How do you know that Vlad doesn't know his claims are false?
Well, in one corner we have evidence, in your corner we have conjecture. It doesn't take much detective work to spot the difference.
(06-16-2017, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Translation, it's all the Republicans fault. Dressing up partisanship only hides what it is to people not paying attention.
LOL, No fooling you with my three clearly stated examples of Republican operatives; you were "paying attention."
The first question I ask regarding descriptions of political history, behavior, and policies is whether they are accurate.
If I think they are not, I try to say where they are, or I don't say anything.
If they are accurate, then it doesn't really matter whether they are "partisan."
And if accuracy is the desired goal, then to begin a non-partisan inquiry into bad political behavior with the assumption that one simply must find that behavior distributed equally on "both sides," is to begin with an unacceptable bias.
I add that calling other people "partisan" doesn't establish one's non-partisan credentials, especially where the charges are unsupported. Partisans call each other that all the time.
(06-16-2017, 05:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, no. The NYT's itself acknowledged the information was false, so this isn't in dispute. As to the author, if they didn't know whether the information was true or false they should engage in something called fact checking. After all, that is their job. So your defense of them is that the were either willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent. Neither speaks well for the author or the NYT's for failing to catch the error.
Well, in one corner we have evidence, in your corner we have conjecture. It doesn't take much detective work to spot the difference.
My "defense" of them is that they made an error and corrected it. You apparently agree, but need more colorful descriptive terms--"willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent." And they did catch the error, hence the correction.
Looks like "conjecture" in both corners, if we are talking about the editors and Vlad, though only one of us recognizes this.
![[Image: 19113960_2167196076840239_14584605691128...e=59E32D49]](https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/19113960_2167196076840239_1458460569112875049_n.jpg?oh=f064f0fd3d226aaf1cc227279817d366&oe=59E32D49)
![[Image: DBPq9lcW0AEGU8z.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBPq9lcW0AEGU8z.jpg)
![[Image: Nugent-Trump-FB.jpg]](http://cdn.freakoutnation.com/uploads/2017/05/Nugent-Trump-FB.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Ted-Nugent-interviewed-by-KENS-TV-on-Feb...00x430.jpg]](http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ted-Nugent-interviewed-by-KENS-TV-on-Feb.-18-2014.-800x430.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
