Posted by Tina
If you’ve been following the thread on Jack’s recent civility article you know that Chris and I have been discussing the issue of civility. As often happens Rush Limbaugh was held up as an example of over the top slurs from the right, specifically that he said, “Jared Laughner has the support of the entire Democratic party.”
I thought some of you might like to know exactly what Rush said so I googled and found the video on the Huffington Post.
This was the HuffPo take:
“Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly infamous mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in the Arizona shooting, by saying that Loughner is smiling in the picture because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party”
Sorry but that doesn’t quite reflect the point Rush was making:
Rush’s remarks follow an hurculean effort made by the left to tie Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and gun owners to the killing spree perpetrated by Jared Laughner. The blood was not even dry before the accusations began. Jarod Laughner was, in their nasty little pea brained scheme, quite simply a victim of the eeeeevil right wing.
In reality who knows what Laughner thought…and who cares? Rush’s point, that left immediately went on the offensive to discredit the right making Laughner a hapless victim, was true. He wasn’t being portrayed as a killer. He wasn’t the focus of anger or even shock…the right WAS!!!! Laughner was portrayed as a victim, or product, of rightwing violence and violent speech.
There was absolutely NOTHING of substance to back it up those claims. In fact there was more in his writings to tie him to the left wing.
Perhaps Rush can be excused for defending HIMSELF and his collegues after the vicious, unfounded attacks making him, and them, responsible for the shootings in Arizona. basically they called him a murderer and it isn’t the first time!
This is a battle that requires a heavy offense. I’m more than happy to have Mr. Limbaugh standing his ground in defense of conservative values and America.
If only Rush defended conservative values.
Oh, well.
We don’t care about any point you think Rush might have been making. If that was a point he wanted to make he should have said that.
Rush is a master of words. He says exactly what he intends to say with no slipups.
Did Rush really say that?
Yes.
Did Rush really mean to say that?
Yes.
Rush does say exactly what he means. He did not mean that the Democrat Party supported Laughner in going on a shooting rampage. I believe that is what he is being accused of saying.
Those accusing him (in the media) are also wordsmiths. They know better…or should!
If I were a liberal and had to listen to Air America or watch CNN and forced to vote for Obama, I would despise and fear Rush. Keep in mind it isn’t conservatives, republicans or the Tea party who want the “fairness doctrine”. Nope it is the cowardly, small minded, liberal Left. Let me help you out, your radio has a “off” switch and a dial that brings in other stations, feel free to use them.
I sure can’t find anything wrong with what Rush is saying. Then again I don’t try to read between the lines or put words in that he never said. Seems like the lefties that are doing it just got caught making stuff up again.
Jack–“Then again I don’t try to read between the lines or put words in that he never said. Seems like the lefties that are doing it just got caught making stuff up again.”
Now this is just unbelievable, Jack. I did not have to “read between the lines” to make my conclusion. I simply read them. I also listened to the audio. Rush said EXACTLY what I claimed he said. I did not make it up; you can listen to it right there.
Tina, nowhere in this article did you defend the accuracy of Rush’s accusation that the entire Democratic Party supports Laughner. Your response boils down to “They said bad things about us, so we get to say bad things about them!” Even if what you’re saying is completely untrue.
The claim that Laughner himself was not portrayed as a killer, but as a victim, is completely untrue. If you have evidence for this claim, please present it.
Rush also said that Laughner understands hes got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything they can to make sure hes not convicted of murder.
There is zero evidence for this claim. Nada, zero, zilch. But that’s no surprise–Rush makes accusations with no basis in fact every single day. How you can admire such a serial liar is beyond me.
Toby–“If I were a liberal and had to listen to Air America or watch CNN and forced to vote for Obama, I would despise and fear Rush.”
Uh, I don’t know any liberals who are “forced” to listen to those stations or to vote for Obama, so what the hell are you talking about?
I despise and fear Rush because he has the uncanny ability to turn otherwise intelligent people into irrational, unthinking sheep who hang on to his every false and malicious word as if it is gospel truth.
“Keep in mind it isn’t conservatives, republicans or the Tea party who want the “fairness doctrine”. Nope it is the cowardly, small minded, liberal Left.”
Who on the left is seriously talking about the fairness doctrine anymore? Do you have names, or is this simply a fear-mongering talking point?
And what does this have to do with anything? The fairness doctrine, even if applied, would not shut Rush’s show down. Do you even know what the fairness doctrine is?
Hey, what did you expect from a serial liar like Chris? Reason? Fairness? I love you Chris. I would give you a shovel but you don’t need one.
This is the one thing that Rush is so singularly skilled at. Throwing it back in their faces.
Chris: “Your response boils down to “They said bad things about us, so we get to say bad things about them!” Even if what you’re saying is completely untrue.”
False. But now I get where you come from when evaluating what is said. As long as a single sentence has a specific meaning for you when reiterated as a stand alone remark it’s fair game. That’s gotcha but not very smart on your part. You have just demonstrated that you really don’t care to know what Rush was saying you are only interested in nailing him…or me. Desperation has set in now.
“The claim that Laughner himself was not portrayed as a killer, but as a victim…”
The claim is that the left loves to create victims. The left lives and survives on creating victims with a victim mentality. This method for gaining support for the party, the needy, the oppressed, the little guy, or fill in the blank class by making them out to be victims can easily be demonstrated. Now hold that thought. It’s a set up for what follows.
They backed into it with laughner, setting the stage for him to become a victim by immediately blaming his rampage on the Tea Party, Rush, Palin, Beck…the “angry” right. This time it backfired because the dude had no ties to these people and groups (Not that the left had this in mind to do on purpose…and that isn’t what Rush was saying).
“Rush also said that Laughner ‘understands hes got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything they can to make sure hes not convicted of murder.’
There is truth in this regardless the obvious absurdity…did you hear what the sherrif said right after the incident? If you were Laughner wouldn’t you be cheering to hear what was being said in the media. (Yeah, it isn’t my fault those evil people MADE ME DO IT!)
Have you EVER heard anyone in a similar position of authority or position talk about the rhetoric of the left causing anyone to go on a shooting rampage? Why did the sherrif choose to mention only right wingers? It’s not like there aren’t any left wingers that say outrageous or inflamatory things. This is a professional who opened his big mouth before he had gathered ANY information about Laughner. He absolutely should know better…his remarks were purely political, absolutely unprofessional, and WRONG!!!
I don’t blame Rush or any of the other targeted people for speaking out and hitting back hard. And in reality when they do respond or hit back they do so with humor and a wry shrug…acceptance that this is the way it is when free speech is the basis upon which we all stand.
“Who on the left is seriously talking about the fairness doctrine anymore?”
The fairness doctrine won’t fly…this is well known among the left leadership. There are other methods under consideration (we have blogged about them previously). Obama’s new FCC guy has some ideas:
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/12/a-fairness-doctrine-by-any-other-name-is-still-a-fairness-doctrine/
(the above site Includes a link to a transcript of Coppss speech.)
Also there’s the latest call by Media Matters about guerrilla warfare and sabotage to eliminate FOX.
http://johnpaulus.com/blog/2011/03/28/david-brock-may-be-violating-law-with-threat-against-fox-news/
As this blogger points out they should be careful or they will lose their tax exempt status.
“Do you even know what the fairness doctrine is?”
We lived under it. We know what it inspired…and you are absolutely wrong about Rush and a lot of other shows…some you would like. Do you have any idea what it is and what the result would be?
Pie: “Hey, what did you expect from a serial liar like Chris?”
Care to explain what you think I have lied about, Pie? As far as I can remember I have never been accused of lying by anyone on this site, including you, so I have no idea where you’re coming from here.
Tina: “As long as a single sentence has a specific meaning for you when reiterated as a stand alone remark it’s fair game. That’s gotcha but not very smart on your part. You have just demonstrated that you really don’t care to know what Rush was saying you are only interested in nailing him…or me. Desperation has set in now.”
Please. I haven’t demonstrated any such thing. We have different interpretations of what Rush said. I think mine is reasonable. You are correct that Rush was attempting to make a larger point. But his accusation that the left supports Jared Laughner was a major part of that larger point. It was also a false accusation. It is not justified by the larger point Rush was making.
“There is truth in this regardless the obvious absurdity…did you hear what the sherrif said right after the incident? If you were Laughner wouldn’t you be cheering to hear what was being said in the media. (Yeah, it isn’t my fault those evil people MADE ME DO IT!)”
No one on the left suggested that Laughner or his lawyers should use this excuse in a court of law. No one, even those who were completely (and wrongly) convinced that Laughner’s rampage was a result of right-wing rhetoric, argued that he should be given a less harsh sentence, or that he shouldn’t be convicted of murder. The idea that the left was attempting to make sure Laughner was not convicted of murder–or that this would even be possible–is stupid and false. There is no evidence for it.
“Why did the sherrif choose to mention only right wingers? It’s not like there aren’t any left wingers that say outrageous or inflamatory things. ”
Perhaps because the victim was a Democratic politician. Not only that, she was a Democratic politician who had expressed concerns about right-wing rhetoric in the past, and had pointed directly to Sarah Palin’s “target” map as an example months before the shooting. That’s part of the reason that the news media pointed to speculation that this was an act of right-wing violence; because it would have made for an story eerie had Giffords’ concerns come true in such a personal way. (I actually disagree with Giffords on the map issue; it was not an example of violent rhetoric.)
That said, I agree with you that the sheriff’s actions were wrong and irresponsible, and that his accusations were false. That doesn’t justify Rush’s accusations, which were all of the above as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
That link about Media Matters is interesting…I had no idea they were a tax exempt group. I happen to like the site, but I don’t see how their tax exempt status is in any way justifiable or appropriate.
This Time article makes an interesting claim about the Fairness Doctrine:
“The FCC has never applied the Fairness Doctrine to a talk radio host, nor does the regulation force stations to give equal time for every perspective.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html#ixzz1I2AFJSRf
So it seems that even if it were to come back, which is unlikely, it would not have the effect you claim it would.
By the way, anyone who uses Media Matters as a source and then has the gall to throw about stupid, churlish insults like “irrational, unthinking sheep” isn’t playing with a full deck.
But hey, that is the left for you.
Pie–back up your comments. You’ve called me a liar and have now insulted my sanity, all without typing out anything resembling a valid argument. Step up your game.
Chris, why don’t you clue me into what the fairness doctrine is all about. Clearly I have been misinformed on what its all about.
Re: Pie–back up your comments. You’ve called me a liar and have now insulted my sanity, all without typing out anything resembling a valid argument. Step up your game.
Snore. You had your say, I had mine.
I stand by my statement. Anyone who uses Media Matters as a source and then has the gall to throw about stupid, churlish insults like “irrational, unthinking sheep” isn’t playing with a full deck.
While your styles differ, you and Quentin Colgan are exactly in tune. You use this forum to toss about your silly and obnoxious radical left wing slurs and you can’t stand it if anyone throws your crap right back in your face.
For the same reason you get your panties in a wad about Rush Limbaugh. You just can’t tolerate anyone treating you like you treat others. Nothing new here.
Toby, head to the link to Time I posted. It is quite informative on the history of the Fairness Doctrine.
“Have you EVER heard anyone in a similar position of authority or position talk about the rhetoric of the left causing anyone to go on a shooting rampage?”
No, of course not. Has the rhetoric of the left ever caused anyone to go on a shooting rampage?
“Why did the sherrif choose to mention only right wingers? It’s not like there aren’t any left wingers that say outrageous or inflamatory things.”
Can you point us to any instance of a leftist vice-presidential candidate telling telling her followers to lock and load?
The rhetoric of the fascists is without parallel.
But at least Liberals aren’t afraid to use their own names.
Q: “Has the rhetoric of the left ever caused anyone to go on a shooting rampage?”
Well let’s see…there were a number of campus leftist who inspired the likes of Bill Ayers and others to riot, bomb, kidnap, murder and steal…does that count?
“Can you point us to any instance of a leftist vice-presidential candidate telling telling her followers to lock and load?”
No but I can point to a President who tells followers if they bring a knife we bring a gun and other such gangster colloquialisms.
Some deny being liberal even when it’s obvious they are, or play silly games about the definition of liberal per common usage, and some even post using multiple code names!
Pie: “I stand by my statement. Anyone who uses Media Matters as a source and then has the gall to throw about stupid, churlish insults like “irrational, unthinking sheep” isn’t playing with a full deck.”
Why, Pie?
No, seriously. Can you explain why my linking to Media Matters on a few occasions somehow invalidates my opinion? I’ve acknowledged that Media Matters is biased. Many sources are. But that’s not enough to make it an invalid source. For that to be the case, it would have be inaccurate. Can you show that the information in the articles I linked to were inaccurate?
I sometimes feel like the analysis of Media Matters contains a bit too much hyperbole. I would also prefer that they called out violent and hateful rhetoric on both sides of the fence, instead of only focusing on the right wing. The comments section of MM is often filled with unthinking sheep.
However, most of the time the main articles are a great source of information. They quote their political targets accurately and in full context, and provide links to back up everything. It is always with much hesitation that I cite MM as a source…usually it’s just a lot easier than rounding up all the links to more objective sources that they’ve posted, and expecting the person I’m arguing with to go and read through every one of them. I cite MM because of the convenience factor.
I don’t see why citing MM is any different from Tina citing Heritage or Cato, or you citing the notoriously bigoted and fact-twisting Washington Times. But, if it’s such a barrier to you taking my arguments seriously, I suppose next time I can try linking to the original sources which prove my claim and not a Media Matters piece that compiles them all together.
Tina,
I think the president’s use of that phrase was a big mistake. Obviously he didn’t mean it literally, but it was still very irresponsible. And objectively, it sounds worse to me than “lock and load.” Both were intended as metaphors. I would prefer this kind of language was not used by our elected politicians, but in the end, I think it is a stretch to blame either one for actual violence.
But what of Sharron Angle’s suggestion to use “second amendment remedies” if her constituency couldn’t get their way by voting? To me, that remains an alarming example of violent rhetoric, because I can’t figure out an interpretation of it that doesn’t literally advocate violence.
Q: “Has the rhetoric of the left ever caused anyone to go on a shooting rampage?”
T: No, but here are some irrlevancies that I offer no proof of actually ever happening.
ummmmmm OK
Q: “Can you point us to any instance of a leftist vice-presidential candidate telling telling her followers to lock and load?”
T: Again, I cannot. To counter, all I have is some quote I keep hearing on Hannity that was taken completely out of context when the president was being jocular with reporters.
If I had thought you could, I wouldn’t have asked!
As you may know, my goal is to make you TEA partiers look foolish.
Thanks for the assist!
Chris?
You seem like a decent sort of person. Is this naive schtick a joke? I find it difficult to believe you do not already know the answers to the questions you seek.
You ask a person without the guts to use their own name to back up their comments? You’re kidding, right? I mean, it’s a joke, correct?
If you honestly cannot understand these people, read up on Pavlov.
Chris: “Obviously he didn’t mean it literally”
Obviously? Based on what? He has used this kind of language on several occasions. He also trained members of ACORN and we have seen what they are capable of doing in terms of intimidation tactics. He has also been involved with the SEIU and they too have used violence at gatherings and protests. I have no reason to give him a pass other than the fact that we live in a country where most people obey our laws and behave with civility even when arguments become heated and rhetoric crosses the usual barriers.
The remarks that Angel made are similar for me but less inflamatory; more profoundly a warning. Historical rather than gangsta and therefore more civil. The founders didn’t just go off…they deliberated and considered carefully. People from many political perspectives have wondered whether it will take a revolution to accomplish getting our republic back. Quentin has suggested as much and I have heard it suggested by persons on the progressive left.
Chris you might enjoy this paper on Second Amendment Remedies
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/14/Dan-second-reading-amendment/
The authors conclusion is that recent Supreme Court rulings have created the notion that assassination is ok if an individual feels he is being oppressed. This conclusion denies the civic restraints, both moral and legal, that citizens accept and place on themselves. I think its absurd to think that individual gun rights give authorization for assassination. The argument does offer something more for you to noodle, however.
I think Sharon Angle was making a point about the need to wake up and protect ourselves from an ever growing and intrusive federal government. I think it was a warning bell or plea that our voices can be enough if we step forward, participate, and become a strong political force. I thought of it as a call to her fellow citizens to wake up and avoid revolution.
“Q: Has the rhetoric of the left ever caused anyone to go on a shooting rampage?
T: No, but here are some irrlevancies that I offer no proof of actually ever happening.
ummmmmm OK”
Here’s what I actually said with sarcasm: “…there were a number of campus leftist who inspired the likes of Bill Ayers and others to riot, bomb, kidnap, murder and steal…does that count?”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=632
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18767023/A-Climate-of-Violence-The-Weather-Underground-The-FBI-196878
At 1:32am on the 28th February, 1971, a timed explosive blast tore through an unmarked, out-of-the-way washroom in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Two days later, the Associated Press received a letter from the revolutionary left wing terrorist group The Weather Underground, claiming credit for the explosion as a protest against the American invasion of Laos, launched on February 8th. The communiqu identified three reasons for the Capitol bombing: to express our love and solidarity with the non-white people of the world who always happen to be the victims of 200 years of U.S. technological warfare; to freak out the warmongers and remind them they have created guerrillas here; and to bring a smile and a wink to the kids and people here who hate this government.2 The bomb was a small one: 15lbs of dynamite hidden in a briefcase and triggered via a crude stopwatch detonator; besides the bathroom, only the Senate barbershop and three back-corridor offices were damaged.3 Symbolically, however, the bomb powerfully illustrated the ability of the Weather Underground to strike without warning at the very seat of American Government with seeming impunity, and caused a very real panic in Washington, D.C. President Nixon himself denounced the attack on national television as the most dastardly act in American history.4 * *** The Weather Underground, for a time, was Public Enemy No. 1 in America.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/guerrilla/peopleevents/e_kidnapping.html
Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the people.
— slogan of the Symbionese Liberation Army
In 1974 a little-known but wealthy Berkeley undergraduate, Patricia Hearst, became a media celebrity after being kidnapped by a group of revolutionaries calling themselves the Symbionese Liberation Army. The kidnap victim transformed into a seemingly willing accomplice; over the months of her kidnapping, she participated in crimes, claimed allegiance to the S.L.A., and defended her captors as valiant heroes. From tape recordings, her trial testimony and own telling of the story years later, several different versions of events emerge, but there seems to be no resolution to the questions about her transformation. Her parents thought that she had been brainwashed; experts suggested that she was a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome, mistakenly identifying with her captors in an effort at self-preservation. Yet it is also possible that Hearst repudiated her upbringing to flirt with radical terrorism.
The revolutionary Symbionese Liberation Army formed in Berkeley, California, just months before the kidnapping. Berkeley had long been America’s center of radical militarism. By the early Seventies, after years of protest and resistance, some fringes of the Left were developing a sense of urgency. In the ever-present debate between non-violent and violent actions, the idea of terrorism was gaining ground.
The S.L.A. members went into hiding after the Foster killing. Two months later local police picked up Russ Little and Joe Remiro on a traffic violation in a vehicle full of S.L.A. weapons and propaganda. The two revolutionaries were taken in for questioning and arrested for the Foster murder. Later that day, just ahead of the police, Nancy Ling Perry set fire to the Concord safe house. When police arrived they found the house scorched but not burned down, leaving a significant amount of evidence intact.
Quentin: “As you may know, my goal is to make you TEA partiers look foolish.”
So far you make only yourself look foolish.
Here are a few more Obama gems:
In a 2010 midterm campaign message to Latino voters, Obama urged Hispanics to punish our enemies
In a direct plea to African-American and other minority voters, Obama said during October 7, 2010 radio interview that a Republican victory in the mid-term elections would mean hand-to-hand combat on Capitol Hill for the next two years.
At another campaign stop on September 18, 2008, Obama advocated that his supporters argue with [people], get in their faces
And here’s some video:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/02/17/obama_using_violent_rhetoric_to_defend_unions
Defending unions in Wisconsin Obama said some of the rhetoric was an assault on unions. He spoke about them being neighbors and friends. Apparently neighbors and friends like Walker, the legislators that wrote the bill, and those citizens and legislators that supported it didnt deserve the same consideration from the president. He also failed to mention the assault on the capitol building or some of the inaccurate and nasty rhetoric coming from union members.
I rest my case…sarcasm intact.
Here’s some leftist violence rhetoric that is a little more current:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-wisconsin-threats-idUSTRE72U7T220110331?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true