Canada didnt have a civil war over slavery either... we didnt segregate white and black people up till 1950s....we dont have a second amendement that guarantees the constitutional right to bear arms..
Canada and the U.S are different in those particular ways...we have people shooting one another on the street because of drugs/unemployment, but our politicans are so boring, very few young people even know their names.
So I'd like to see the Democrats push for better gun control (even if just an incremental measure) rather than use this as an ill advised (and doomed) tactic to gain political traction against Sarah Palin.
And there you are just absolutely wrong to see this is primarily an instrumental thing to do. And while I can see how people here come up with these ideas, putting on my ex-pats hat, I take exception deeply.
The primary reaction to this is visceral.
The incident correctly understood or not, this not an instrumental reaction by people in the US.
are you sure its the celebration of gun culture? maybe its a celebration for the U.S military also. The U.S is always glorifying the military and their soldiers; they can do no wrong as far as most Americans are concerned. How can heroes be wrong? And even if they were wrong, there's a goddamn righteous reason for it.
I am sure it has alot to do with being a military superpower, and mixed with a lot of over hyped masculinity and misogyny.
The more I think about it, the more I think that progressives who are tying the shooting to political speech are wrong.
I don't believe this is about speech, it's about access to guns and gun control.
You could say they are two distinct issues.
But the deliberately generated hate in the US has an enormous impact. It would be something that would have to be dealt with even if it resulted in no shootings.
The interesction is that the people who actually and unambiguosuly celebrate gun culture, are virtually the same people who celebrate this overarching diviseiveness.
But the access to guns problem is not same thing as the celebration of gun culture.
They two things overlap, but the first problem you get into in the legalistic approach to gun control and gun access, is that there are MANY very opposed to you who are not at all part of the celebration of the gun culture. But that should not just be seen as a practical problem. That practical/'tactical' problem is obscuring how much of the problem is the celebration of gun control. And now we are squrely back at the political problem, or the huge political-cultural divide in the US.
Time to put to rest the mythological 'drug related' violence.
Gang warfare is about MONEY,not drugs...It just so happens that their bread and butter is in the capitalization of prohibition.
As for guns...Up until 2010,I thought most Canadians WANTED gun control.
I don't know if it was the media making a minority look like the vast majority during the right to bear arms issue the Tories were using as a wedge issue or if Canadians are just as much a people of gun 'nuts' as our demented neighbours to the South.
Social convention in Canada keeps folks from expressing murderous urges.
Where/when did social convention in the U.S. find it acceptable...even humorous?
This is where I agree that the roots in the US are old. Slavery and the Civil War were mentioned. That left a 'living heritage' of black people barely franchised, who had to be "kept in line." I would add the aptly named 'Indian Wars' that stamped the West, with national cultural influences. Canada was able to seize the West from First Nations without as much militarization [my personal sense is that the Candian state was able to hitchhike a ride on the US military conquest of the West... where First Nations on this side of the border could see what resistance was going to get them]. The conquest of the southwest quarter of the US from Latinos [who had conqured it from the Indians] required less violence, but was just as bloody when required. Entire families of Californios were lynched if they got in the way of American seizures of land.
Then there is the simple fact that policing- broadly looked at- in the frontier of Canada was on the interventionist, centralized and bureaucratic British model... while comnmunity vigilantiasm was the rule on the US fronteir [be that literal vigilantes, or vigilantes with state sanctioned badges].
Whatever cause it, murderous resolution of conflict has a history of acceptance in the US.
Most clearly and viciously expressed in lynchings of black people.
Canada didnt have a civil war over slavery either... we didnt segregate white and black people up till 1950s....we dont have a second amendement that guarantees the constitutional right to bear arms..
Not to sidetrack the thread, because I do agree with you that the U.S. and Canada have significant historical differences, but we also have our share of invasions, occupations, deportations, racial segregation, and camps. Our history might not seem quite as stark and as universally condemned as slavery, but in many things Canada has been little more than a company town - a few steps up from serfdom and slavery.
My point is that when it comes to unresolved grievances we are no different, and in fact worse in some ways than the U.S.
And KenS
We had our vigilantees too - the Orange Order. For that matter nothing about the Canadian takeover of Red River was legal or orderly, and Wolseleys troops terrorised people like thugs when they first came to Winnipeg.
And from the start Canada was in competition with the U.S. Macdonald hammered that railway through because otherwise 54/40 would have been the new reality.
Sorry for getting off topic. I think there are a lot of reasons in our history why the U.S. has a stronger tradition of freedom of speech, and yet more intolerance of it at the same time. To get into them is probably a topic for another thread.
@Lou Arab... Nice idea but it would never work in the USA. Its about 150 years too late.
I don't know what exactly you have in mind but strict gun control would end up like liquor probation in the 1930s; guns would still be there, criminals damn sure would still have them, most people would ignore the law, it would open up a new niche for organized crime and it would make ordinary people criminals just for owning a gun.
Oh and for the record all homicides make the press in the USA; the local press. Only unique ones (for the lack of a better word) like this one make it to the national/ international level. I'm sure in the past two or three days someone has been murdered in Canada and unless there's something spectacular about it I'm not going to hear about down where I'm at.
The question of limits to "free speech" vis a vis "incitement to violence" is not always a clear cut in my mind and not always white or black but rather a continuum of white-gray-black.
There are, I'd guess, even more people who would find limits to speech acceptable when dealing with the following examples:
Oct. 26, 2010
Abortion Docs Decry "Wanted" Posters as Bait
....
They look like wanted posters from the Wild West. But they're not photos of criminals, CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports -- they depict doctors in North Carolina who perform abortions. They asked us to block their faces."It doesn't say 'Wanted Dead or Alive' but the implications are clearly there," said a doctor, who, fearing for his life, asked to remain anonymous...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/26/eveningnews/main6994245.shtml
The question of what should be legal and what illegal ultimately becomes a difficult issue of nuances of language and image to be sorted out.
For example, the repugnance of the above sentiments aside, one can imagine an anti-abortion website that is civil and non-threatening in its arguments and most think should be legal.
Imagine also a gradual of changes of wording and image to end up with the violence-inciting websites above, which would be illegal in Canada (rightly I think).
....
The political discourse in much of the US is charged, (aided by much of the right wing media and demagogues such as Glenn Beck) as a real assault on America by anti-American leftist, socialist, terrorist loving, infiltrators in the government etc. etc. The question for many of the believers is: How does one fight such a assault on the heart of America?
This patriotic video by the "entertainer" Ray Stevens captures perfectly the spirit of the "defenders of America" in a literal war against it's threats from within the government. "God Save Arizona":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpOcZVnBrc&feature=fvsr
It is difficult not to see it as a justification for violence in the bewildered minds of a considerable portion of the populace.
The fact that it plays on the irrational fears of a largely ignorant public is key to the general polemic of a managed democracy of the decerebrated.
That said- my responese to Lou above...
This is a good time for agitating about gun control. A case everyone knows about where someone easily got a 9mm Glock with a huge clip. And if he had put easily available soft tip bullet ammo in, most of the injured would be dead as well- definitely including Giffords.
There does need to be a reminder that vigilantiasm happened in Canada as well. [And as I noted, we also did seize from First Nations militarily.]
But when we are talking about effects through history to the present, it matters that it was much more widespread in the US.
Holy fuck...Ray Stevens...Wasn't he the asshole who sang 'The Streak'?
What an asshat.
Free speech? People are so full of shit. There HAS to be limits os speech.
And there are. And since I started working here (about 12 years) the limits have got a bit tighter.
Guys do not wolf whistle at girls walking by, or use loud obscene words when they do anymore.
Because now they get fired for doing it.
Absolute freedom of speech means the curtailment of other freedoms, for other people.
Thats why the n word is ok coming from some mouths but not others and the same with the c word.
And thats why we have moderators here.
Even though they call me sometimes, free speech is not an absolute right and never should be.
In the case of speech which demeans,humiliates or incites violence,I think that's a moral issue.
MOST people recognizes that type of speech as unacceptable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but sane and rational people can distinguish the difference between what's acceptable and what is not and I think everyone has been guilty of saying things others would deem inappropraiate at one time or another.
I think the media has a duty to report FACTS,encourage critical thought and be bi-partisan when it comes to op-ed pieces and open mouth talk radio and television.
If words like 'fuck' and explicit sexuality and nudity are strictly censored from mainstream media,it should be without question that hateful,injurious,inciteful rhetoric and lies should be censored as well.
The Palins,Becks,Limbaughs,Coulters and Hannitys in the media are FAR more of a threat and FAR more offensive and repugnant than a half second of nipple during a half time show at the Super Bowl.
The more I think about it, the more I think that progressives who are tying the shooting to political speech are wrong.
I don't believe this is about speech, it's about access to guns and gun control. [...]
So I'd like to see the Democrats push for better gun control (even if just an incremental measure) rather than use this as an ill advised (and doomed) tactic to gain political traction against Sarah Palin.
Wow - great post, Lou! Thanks for the sober viewpoint in the midst of all the groundless partisan speculation led by the U.S. media.
Let me put it more simply: A goes to a shopping mall, shoots 20 people, kills 6. Problem - guns, or free speech?
Only in Amerika could this be a difficult question.
Guys do not wolf whistle at girls walking by, or use loud obscene words when they do anymore.
Because now they get fired for doing it.
Absolute freedom of speech means the curtailment of other freedoms, for other people.
Thats why the n word is ok coming from some mouths but not others and the same with the c word.
And thats why we have moderators here.
Even though they call me sometimes, free speech is not an absolute right and never should be.
You're confusing a couple of things. I am talking about legal limits on free speech. With Freedom of Speech, private organizations still have the right to fire people based on speech at work (or outside of work in some cases) or ban posters based on what they write. That is a VERY different thing than the government banning certain speech/ideas.
We'll see whether Lou still agrees with his statement. But whether he does or not, I think it is safe to say he would never dismiss people with a "groundless partisan speculation led by the U.S. media" dismissive wave.
Bless our stars for enlightened ploughing to the truth in Kanada.
I hope Lou still agrees with his statement, because it is correct. The shooter was talking about Giffords way back in 2007, when he received an email from her. The real issue is why was someone like him able to have a gun? The anecdotes that have come to light in ht epast 24 hours indicate that quite a few people considered him mentally unstable. If it had not been so easy for him to get a gun, things would have gone a lot differently.
We'll see whether Lou still agrees with his statement. But whether he does or not, I think it is safe to say he would never dismiss people with a "groundless partisan speculation led by the U.S. media" dismissive wave.
Lou = good, Unionist = bad. I know, I know, but I'm working on it. Thanks for the mature reflection, Ken.
You know, and I've been saying all along, that the two are not in the least contradictory: the shooters personal motivations and vendettas, and exhibited in the direction where talk radio and general hysteria pushes it.
And I'm sure you might be able to find a discussion mirroring this one here in the US, but I'll bet you have to look hard. So far, the references here have been from right wing apologists raising questions.
The same suspicious inclinations exist in the US left. But around this case, they are not going to come out very easily, if at all. Force of evidence, and none of the distance we have here.
Wow - great post, Lou! Thanks for the sober viewpoint in the midst of all the groundless partisan speculation led by the U.S. media.
OK, that's twice in one week you've praised my posts. You have successfully knocked me off balance. I'm flagging your post because you must be up to something. :)
@ Unionist
I am no more led about by the U.S. media than you are by whatever information sources you follow. If you disagree with me, fine. But my opinions are my own. Can we keep this above insulting each others' intelligence?
I will say it yet again: It doesn't matter if there was a connection between the rhetoric and the attack, and I do not think there was a direct one. That doesn't change the fact this is a stark reminder that this kind of disrespect and intimidation of one's opponent, and framing political discourse in the contect of violent assault is completely out of line.
And if it is a wake-up call in that regard then it is perhaps one good thing to come out of this tragedy.
That doesn't change the fact this is a stark reminder that this kind of disrespect and intimidation of one's opponent, and framing political discourse in the contect of violent assault is completely out of line.
And if it is a wake-up call in that regard then it is perhaps one good thing to come out of this tragedy.
You have no evidence that this shooting is related to any "kind of disrespect and intimidation of one's opponent", so your logic (which I agree is your own, not the U.S. media's), is flawed.
You're confusing a couple of things. I am talking about legal limits on free speech. With Freedom of Speech, private organizations still have the right to fire people based on speech at work (or outside of work in some cases) or ban posters based on what they write. That is a VERY different thing than the government banning certain speech/ideas.
So you are saying that they could fire me for saying unions are great too? They had a 3 second rule up at uvic a few years ago. (construction workers got fired for staring at the students) and everyone had to buy dark glasses.
Lucky for the guys that they were allowed to buy the glasses. So what is the difference between lewd comments to a passerby and hateful comments like Beck gives out? Surely Beck violates many people in one go and the lewd comments only attacks one person?
And the right wing show hosts shout their guests down and tell them to shut up. Is that free speech too?
I don't understand the objection to the suggestion that right-wing violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. As I stated in an earlier thread, this is the second time in two years a "liberal" (sic) has been explicitly targeted for murder. It seems to me that the American mythologies and ideologies which underwrite and mobilize gun control rhetoric also mobilize other right-wing concerns. The myth of the American frontiersman who needs a firearm to survive, or of the maverick family man defending his home (or state, or country) from invasion, or of Puritannical putative retribution (among other narratives) all have the effect of normalizing and sanitizing acts of violence. Republicans draw on these myths when they talk about gun control, health care, immigration and all their favourite shows.
Of course this issue is "about" gun control; but it is equally "about" the violent roots of right-wing ideology: xenophobia, cynical self-interest, anti-social individualism and reactionary retribution.
Did I not just say I did not think there was a direct connection? Shall I say it again?
I think the person who perpetrated this act probably did so primarily because of a mental disorder.
Once again, for good measure:
THis was the act of an ill person. If there was a political motivation, I seriously doubt it was grounded in the platform of any faction.
I hope that is clear enough, because I am growing weary of repeating it.
On the other hand, I happen to think violent rhetoric is a bad thing. You may agree or not.
Also, I think an attempt to kill a political figure is de facto a political act regardless of intent. You may disagree with that.
In any case, My feeling is that any sober person, seeing that a person whom he or she has been vilifying with talk of guns, "Locking and loading" and gunsight targets, has just been gravely injured, and that numerous people have been killed by REAL guns which fire REAL bullets, might be shamed into reconsidering the rhetoric that has become the norm in American politics.
I think this should give all parties pause; Idon't think this is any reason to score points against Republicans, Tea Partiers, or right-wing commentators although they are the worse offenders.
There is nothing here for anyone to rub their hands in glee over.
This is not about freedom of speech-- that should be an absolute. However, freedom of speech and expression is not a pass on being responsible for what you say. There is a world of difference.
I am not inclined to agree with those that say that this is all tipped off by the vitriol that has been going around-- if it is that will need to be proven. I am more likely to agree with those who say that the access to weapons and the weapon culture is the primary cause of the tragedy. In that the target imagery that is displayed by Palen et al is a reflection of the weapon culture rather than the direct cause. Unfortunately those shot (excluding the child) were all supporters of that weapon culture.
The fact is the US is a society poisoned by individual greed, the power of weapons, misogynism, violence, hero worship, vilification, paranoia, and disregard for life. Micro-explanations draw away attention to this.
In addition to this the right wing from moderate to extreme is increasingly enamored by these traits which explains why it is more the right than the left that is involved in the most outlandish displays. The US political environment is so distorted that its centre-left is by most standards quite right wing.
I find it tough to make a case in this context that a society so loaded down by this poison can be poisoned by the Palen crap alone. I am with those above who believe that their society is so sick through and through that this is just a feature of it. I feel deeply sorry for the minority of reasonable sane Americans who must live in that. I also fear the direction we are headed here is no better.
I have several times stated that I think such violence is increasingly coming here, it is a predictable bi-product of the culture we are embracing and the only reason we do not seen more often is a combination of dumb luck and the fact our population is so much smaller and therefore the same degree of violence would create fewer stories here. But I do remember December 6th and I feel absolutely no smugness when I gaze across the border.
Popping in to mention that it's a myth that Canada didn't have slaves. Here's another link.
Please excuse the drift.
Media Matters Calls On Murdoch To Rein In Beck, Palin
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/media-matters-calls-on-murdoc...
"This is not about freedom of speech-- that should be an absolute". Why should it be absolute?
And what does absolute freedom of speech mean? Anyone can denegrate another person or race to an absolute degree, Correct?
That is "absolute" freedom.
And the only way to protect that absolute freedom is to prevent those offended people from killing the freedom of speech fighter.
I am sorry for people who believe in absolute freedom of speech. It clearly infringes on other freedoms.
I don't understand the objection to the suggestion that right-wing violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. [...]
Of course this issue is "about" gun control; but it is equally "about" the violent roots of right-wing ideology: xenophobia, cynical self-interest, anti-social individualism and reactionary retribution.
We will not, no matter how hard we try, succeed in limiting "right-wing violent rhetoric" in the United States.
We are, however, facing very real and menacing attacks on our own political freedoms in this country, based on similar kinds of logic. David Matas and many others say that calling Israel an "apartheid" state leads to disputes and violence on campuses. Peaceful assembly in opposition to the G20 also leads to violence. And [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/canadian-judge-says-jihad-terroris... supporting the insurgents in Afghanistan[/url] is an act of terrorism.
Should we buy into the notion that violence is caused by "violent rhetoric"? Will they let us be the judge of what that means? Not by recent indications.
Who said violence is caused by "violent rhetoric"? Thats stuffing essentialism into the mouths of people that did not say it.
Yes, Catchfire did say that right-wing violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. But thats the short form of what has been stated numerous times: when you are constantly demonizing your opponents as enemies threatening your way of life, and when the leaders encourage people to show up armed at rallies that are about other political issues like health care, not gun control, its rather obvious what that leads to. It was obvious a year ago, and now it has happened.
So you have rallies agitating about how government health care is a threat to your way of life being perpetrated on you by your enemies... and people are encouraged to come to these rallies armed. Hmmm...
Popping in to mention that it's a myth that Canada didn't have slaves. Here's another link.
Please excuse the drift.
Your drifts are wonderful.
Who said violence is caused by "violent rhetoric"? Thats stuffing essentialism into the mouths of people that did not say it.
Yes, Catchfire did say that right-wing violent rhetoric leads to violent acts.
Sorry Ken, your distinction is way too subtle for me: "A leads to B", but "A does not cause B".
How about this - there is zero evidence that any violent rhetoric, by anyone, "led to" the Arizona shooting.
There is, however, lots of danger here in Canada that progressive speech and progressive activism and organizing will be (are being) suppressed because of hysterical allegations that they may "lead to" violence.
I think this thread topic, and the ravings of some "Democratic" politicians in the U.S. about Palin and the Tea Party and Tucson, are a huge trap which we must avoid walking into.
@ Maysie #77
That is an astounding bit of buried history. Thank You
I can't believe that people talk about Vimy Ridge as the moment when Canada came into its own as a country independent of its colonizers, and ignore the fact that Upper Canada started the work of abolishing slavery more than a decade before Britain - the country which is generally credited with beginning the end of the institution of slavery.
But again - thread drift.
and @ Unionist
If someone published a picture of David Matas with a big target on his head I would have a problem with that.
As for criticism of his ideas, that seems completely fair to me, and I don't see the connection with anything we are talking about here.
If someone published a picture of David Matas with a big target on his head I would have a problem with that.
I don't believe you heard me say that I approve of Sara Palin and the Tea Party's dirty propaganda. That's not really the issue here.
Here's the issue: If someone shot up a crowd of people where David Matas was doing a book-launch - with zero evidence about why or what motivated the attack - how would you feel about a public debate as to whether the anti-Israel rhetoric has gone too far?
That's the issue. And that's why I find this thread and this discussion extremely disturbing.
You know I think a nice start might be to take all the guesswork and subtlety out of this and just deal with overt imagery.
Like no bombs in airports, or no swastikas in Germany.
Of course we don't want to suppress any free expression, or enact any laws which mught be turned back against the left.
How about something really simple? A ban in political discourse on any reference to guns, targets and aiming WRT human beings, setting our sights, locking and loading, and all other overt gun imagery? Do you think Americans could manage to conduct the business of running their country without having to talk about their ersatz penises?
Is that too tall an order? Not that I am making a serious proposal here... just trying to get at what people here find so challenging about restricting all this violent talk.
How about something really simple? A ban in political discourse on any reference to guns, targets and aiming WRT human beings, setting our sights, locking and loading, and all other overt gun imagery?
Would you begin by banning recruitment ads for the military? Then we'd ban Obama saying we should "hunt down and kill" the "terrorists" (let me know if you can't find that promise from his election campaign)? Then we would ban any discussion of executing human beings?
Is that too tall an order? Not that I am making a serious proposal here... just trying to get at what people here find so challenging about restricting all this violent talk.
Violent talk is a byproduct, not a cause, of a violent society and social-economic system. What I personally find "so challenging" is who you think will do the restricting, and what they will restrict.
Actually, Unionist, my contention is that violent rhetoric is violence. Most of us call it such when Tom Flanagan or Pat Buchanan or Glen Beck call for the assassination of public officials and foreign heads of state. Yet now that when such prognostications have come true, we're supposed to stop the observations we've made because of some fals equivalency argument you make about David Matas? Do you think "apartheid" is violent language? Or is it an accurate description of violent conduct and policy? If not, I don't see how your comparison holds water.
By all means, use this to show the folly of lax gun laws--but if you deny the evidence of the violence underpinning toxic political discourse, there's an important lesson you're not learning from history.
@ Unionist
I thought I put my neck on the line as the arbiter of civil discourse (in a completely hypothetical question, of course).
No gun talk. No targetting your opponents, no loading for bear. No shooting to kill, and (though it might be difficult) no bringing guns to rallies.
That doesn't even get into the finer points of calling people traitors, anti-american or other epithets.
Do you really think the wheels of government would grind to a halt with a simple restriction like that? After all, when it comes to everyday dealings between us peons uttering threats is already considered a crime and we manage just fine.
I have to admit to secretly harboring a wish that the American people would dust off their muskets and overthrow the US Military-Wall St. dictatorship.
But fascists know full well what they do. They've pretty much crushed unions in the U.S. Their agenda now, as fascism goes, is to finish destroying the economy and paving the way for the full Monty fascist agenda. Buckle-up everyone.
Our stooges should have listened to the likes of David Matas back when they were making friendly with actual fascists.
@ Unionist #85
Just saw your comment:
Well so long as his critics stuck to the issues and didn't publish pictures of him with a gun pointed at his head then their asses would be covered, wouldn't they?
Fair criticism is not what we're talking about here, and I don't know why you're trying to make a connection where there isn't one.
As to the question, there should not be limits to freedom of speech BUT there should be greater access to diversity of opinion.
That said, I don't think this event has anything to do with the toxic talk that permeates US politics. I am in full agreement with Lou Arab. Gun laws (or lack of any reasonable restrictions) and inadequate health care are the culprits for this tragedy.
I also find it annoying that when inciting violence against brown, potentially Muslim US citizens, as has been the case for at least a decade, doesn't ever merit any public conversation about spewing hatred and needing to limit free speech. What we lack are courageous journalists/columnists who are willing to decry the violent rhetoric and point out why it's dangerous to society as a whole.
I cannot find the original post of this link. Thanks to whoever posted it.
Chris Hedges (who has been shot at too) feels that America WILL become a facist state pretty soon.
People on babble have a knee jerk reaction to the word liberal. Try to look past that.
Very good listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vteQnUmCj9U
I am not sure what type of tripple bluff Unionist is trying to play. It isn't chess. If someone on public radio says "kill Obama"or if someone puts gunsights over a picture of a candidate, it is meant to scare them and it is also meant to enrage and energise the rabid followers.
I agree with catchfire that violent rhetoric is violence. It is propaganda. I do not believe anyone can just kill someone without thinking that they are worthless. Well, it takes a lot of brainwashing (propaganda) to convince a thinking person that it is ok to murder someone else.
But if it is constant over many years, it does work. Armies do it all the time.
And civilians have done this type of murder in all societys.
Enough brainwashing and civilians have done mass murder too.
Fox presenters have been doing this descent into evil for a long time. People do not respond to my post about the Belgian radio host who called on the people in Rwanda to murder their neighbours. That is a natural progression from the current situation.
It is a hard thing to counter but you will not counter it with "free speech" for Beck and other twisted monsters.
Good points, Brian. But it's not free speech imv that is the problem. It's who controls the air waves and limits alternate voices that is the problem.
very telling video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs75zKxJxVY&feature=related
Congresswoman Gifford felt threatened back in March.
(Not our Harper. An american version) Harper said the shootings Saturday underscore the need for broader personal gun ownership.
"When everyone is carrying a firearm," Harper said, "nobody is going to be a victim." Well no, it is more about who shoots first and who has the better guns and who has the sniper rifles and who has those wonderful 30 round magazines. But nice sales rep job just the same.
He wants to party like it is 1939 apparently.
Do you think "apartheid" is violent language? Or is it an accurate description of violent conduct and policy? If not, I don't see how your comparison holds water.
Catchfire, I'm repeating my argument. Those who hold power in this country are trying to ban talk about "Israeli apartheid" because it makes Jewish students feel unsafe on campus (that's one of Matas's lying arguments). They'd like to ban support for the Afghan insurgency because it supports violence. They'd like to ban mass demonstrations because they lead to violence.
So yes, as you well know (not sure why you'd want to ask me a rhetorical question like that), apartheid is an accurate description of violent conduct and policy. But I'm repeating myself again: You and I are not going to be allowed to make that determination, once some new law is passed about "violent rhetoric". So it would be particularly ironic for the future victims of such a law to be beating the drums for it now.
Am I really having to explain what I mean here? You needn't agree with me Catchfire, but you could at least accurately represent my viewpoint when challenging it.
Well all the talk shows I watched tonight, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow spent more time talking about guns, their availability how someone so unstable was able to legally buy a handgun. So that subject matter or guns and mental health is picking up steam down here...
I also to took one for the team here and watched about 10 minutes of the O'Rreilly Factor; he spent the whole time whining about the left using this event to attack him and the right. I have to go take a shower now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU6F427158Q
A friend sent me this link to a "the view" video where even the republican lady has strong issues with the crosshairs and Palin's hate speeches.
Palin gets compared with that other great fomenter of hatred, Bin Laden.
It is powerful stuff and it was said months ago.
""It looks like an Al Qaeda Christmas card." That target map itself, with cross hairs over elected officials, qualifies as treason".
