Mad Logic

[Hyena Dandy]

The actions of the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords were, evidently, not motivated by the political rhetoric. While the right breathes a sigh of relief, and the left continues to criticize the right with the normal vitriol, we ignore the fact that political rhetoric isn't the problem.

The problem, rather, is the substance behind the rhetoric. Sarah Palin's gun picture, Olbermann implying someone should kill Hillary Clinton, are both treating a symptom. The disease isn't talking about militancy. Its talking about things that, however plainly put, should inspire militancy.

Ignore the ridiculousness of the claims, things like Obama being a jihadist, the death panel scare. Don't discuss whether or not that's true. Because that is not my point. Take out the names and the branding, and put yourself in the shoes of someone who truly believes that the ruler of their country intends to destroy it and replace it with repressing theocracy, or to institute panels where buearocrats (sp) judge who lives and who dies. Imagine that you're in a hypothetical country where those things ARE true. What would YOU do about it.

My point is that claims like that, if they WERE true, would HAVE to inspire armed revolution. If the people making them truly believed them.

If Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh truly BELIEVED any of the bullshit they said, they wouldn't recoil from acts of violence like this. They wouldn't be writing books, hosting radio shows, or even rallies.

The situation would clearly DEMAND an armed revolution. It would clearly demand that somebody do something.

And yet, as soon as an act of violence is perpetrated, they shake their heads and say "No, we didn't want that at all."

There are, as far as I can tell, two situations. Either they DO truly believe what they're saying, in which case they shouldn't be upset about someone trying to overthrow an illegitimate, totalitarian government. Or they know its bullshit, and they're just trying to manipulate people. They talk about how Obama is as evil as Hitler. But if they truly believed that, they would ask us to do more than Vote Republican every couple years.

I am, as has been stated, a Republican. If I believed that the President of the United States wanted to institute death panels, or turn the US into a repressive Islamic theocracy (or indeed any repressive theocracy) then I would do everything in my power to overthrow that government. Including violence.

But, I don't believe that. So I don't do that. I just vote Republican.







To explain the title, if it isn't clear, the attempted assassin was denounced as a madman. They said that anyone trying to do what he did was insane. Well, if they truly believed what they said, then what he did was perfectly logical, and should be celebrated, and encouraged. It would be logical. But they turned him away. They called him insane. But if they truly believed what they said, 'insanity' is only logical.

[Sleepwalker]

Meh. People aren't logical about politics. Case in point- you being a republican.

It's all about emotional button pushing.

[FArchivist]

The actions of the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords were, evidently, not motivated by the political rhetoric.

That's an assumption, not a fact.
He WAS motivated by political rhetoric, as his Youtube videos show. Whether it is the violent rhetoric commonly purported by the more volatile members of the Tea Party is not clear.

Personally, I do not find the Tea Party rhetoric to be relevant to Mr Loughner. It's quite evident from the Youtube videos that his beliefs mirrored prominent libertarian and Sovereign Citizen David Wynn Miller, right down to Miller's belief how the government is using grammar as mind control.

Sorry, nitpicking here. I find it rather amusing how very few people have picked up that Loughner expressed very libertarian beliefs.

[Bronzebow]

That's an assumption, not a fact.
He WAS motivated by political rhetoric, as his Youtube videos show. Whether it is the violent rhetoric commonly purported by the more volatile members of the Tea Party is not clear.

Personally, I do not find the Tea Party rhetoric to be relevant to Mr Loughner. It's quite evident from the Youtube videos that his beliefs mirrored prominent libertarian and Sovereign Citizen David Wynn Miller, right down to Miller's belief how the government is using grammar as mind control.

Sorry, nitpicking here. I find it rather amusing how very few people have picked up that Loughner expressed very libertarian beliefs.

Mad men do mad things. The logic behind their actions are seldom...well, logical. It may or may not be "politically motivated," but that doesn't mean much in context. Certainly not nearly as much meaning as people/news stations seem to want to put into it.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, he may have been driven more by insanity and less by rhetoric, but I think we do need to look at the way we've all been speaking to each other. It's not appropriate for a politician like Palin* to put out a map with crosshairs on individual Congressmen. Yes, she has the right to do it, but it's not appropriate. What's interesting to me is that most of the left and moderate politicians and pundits are saying, "Yes, let's tone it down and play nice. After all, we're all Americans." Only the far-right, the Becks and O'Reilly's of the world, are yelling and screaming about "their right to be angry."

*Can we even call her a politician? I mean, she quit her job for the book deal money soooo.....

[Bronzebow]

Well, he may have been driven more by insanity and less by rhetoric, but I think we do need to look at the way we've all been speaking to each other. It's not appropriate for a politician like Palin* to put out a map with crosshairs on individual Congressmen. Yes, she has the right to do it, but it's not appropriate. What's interesting to me is that most of the left and moderate politicians and pundits are saying, "Yes, let's tone it down and play nice. After all, we're all Americans." Only the far-right, the Becks and O'Reilly's of the world, are yelling and screaming about "their right to be angry."

*Can we even call her a politician? I mean, she quit her job for the book deal money soooo.....

That I agree. There really needs to be change in this mentality that those differing from your opinions are evil and your personal enemies.

That being said, both of the major parties are guilty. The left isn't trying to play nice by any stretch--they're just as guilty in pushing their own rhetoric down everyone's throat as the right is. Both party leaders are guilty of continuing this high school football rivalry farce that is the Democratic/Republican relationship. It's how the game is played.

[smileyeagle1021]

This whole situation is just... well... let's put it this way, I am being forced to agree to some extent with Sarah Palin (that is when you know that there is something wrong).
She makes a good point when she says that ultimately the blame for this tragedy should lie squarely on the man pulling the trigger, I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment... however, just because someone isn't to blame doesn't make someone blameless. I'm sorry, you can't put a picture of a crosshair over someone and say "get them out of office by any means" and then act surprised when someone attempts an assassination.

[Hyena Dandy]

Meh. People aren't logical about politics. Case in point- you being a republican.

You can't just make a statement that sounds like it could be relevant and leave it. Saying 'Case In Point' and then throwing out something irrelevant doesn't make an a successful argument. Case in point, the fall of the Roman Empire.

Unless you're trying to argue that my political affiliation is evidence that people aren't always logical in politics. In that case, do explain for the class WHY I'm Republican, and how that proves I'm not being logical.

[Bronzebow]

To continue on a previous point:

More people are seeing through the yellow journalism and saying political rhetoric had little to nothing to do with the tragedy. It's looking more and more like Blues are trying to use this as a tool to paint the evil Reds in a corner, while Reds counter with how corrupt the slimy Blues are being to suggest such things, and on and on.

Never waste a crisis.

[Andara Bledin]

More people are seeing through the yellow journalism and saying political rhetoric had little to nothing to do with the tragedy.

It has no direct relation. That's something that's fairly well established.

However, the attitude of hate and violence doesn't exist in a vacuum and has an effect on people's perceptions of what is and isn't acceptable.

^-.-^

[Bronzebow]

However, the attitude of hate and violence doesn't exist in a vacuum and has an effect on people's perceptions of what is and isn't acceptable.

Are you talking about the hate and violence of this one mentally troubled individual, or as a general country and/or species?

We as a human species are experiencing a time in our history where we are the least violent and most peaceful against one another, yet we believe otherwise because of sensationalistic news stories making us believe that there are terrorists and pedophiles hiding under our beds. From what I've read, this one troubled individual has had an obsession with this one public figure for quite a long time. He doesn't represent the general attitude or tendencies of the rest--or even any significant portion--of the USA. The fact that this is such a big deal to us in the first place goes to show that much.

...the childish bickering between team Red and team Blue, aside.

[smileyeagle1021]

Unless you're trying to argue that my political affiliation is evidence that people aren't always logical in politics. In that case, do explain for the class WHY I'm Republican, and how that proves I'm not being logical.

Historically Republicans have opposed rights for homosexuals and opposed any programs that would allow lower income persons to improve themselves (we won't go into welfare, we're talking about cuts to education, cuts to job training and placement assistence, and at least locally cuts to any transportation system other than ever bigger freeways, which while great does nothing to help those who can't afford a car).

So, unless you suddenly have found yourself attracted to women and are already where you want to be financially, then there is something to be said about your decision to be republican being illogical.
Granted, I have no doubt that you could find ways in which being a democrat would be illogical for you to be...
So really, being a member of either political party can be a sign of a lack of logic, which kind of goes back to the original point that was made, there is no logic in politics.

[FArchivist]

Unless you're trying to argue that my political affiliation is evidence that people aren't always logical in politics. In that case, do explain for the class WHY I'm Republican, and how that proves I'm not being logical.

Totally Facetious Answer: Being a Republican means standing on the conservative side of politics. Conservatism is supposed to follow these tenets:

1) Belief in natural law and transcendent moral order and superiority.
2) That tradition and custom guide man and his worldview, not considerations of fairness or equality. (IE, what was good for my great-grandfather is good for us.)
3) That human society is essentially hierarchical and that rights for a minority protect one part of society at the expense of the others, which is a bad thing.\
4) That agrarianism is preferable to urban life.
5) That classical Western civilization is the highest culture to ever exist and that low culture and pop culture are distortions that rip the fabric of society.
6) That loyalty to a locality or region is more central than any commitment to a larger political entity.

As you can see, these tenets are not based anywhere in logic, but instead are rooted in faith and tradition. These are supposed to be the hallmarks of the conservatives in the American political system. See Edmund Burke, Kirk Russell, and other founders of conservative American politics for details.

[blas87]

That you must have pulled out of your ass. I'd hate to see the pages that would flow if I stereotyped liberals the way you just stereotyped conservatives.

[BlaqueKatt]

That you must have pulled out of your ass. I'd hate to see the pages that would flow if I stereotyped liberals the way you just stereotyped conservatives.

no need it's been done

and for the record-the official party platform is here

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Ensuring Equal Treatment for All
Protecting Our National Symbols
Freedom of Speech and of the Press
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Safeguarding Religious Liberties
Preserving Americans’ Property Rights
Supporting Native American Communities

I agree with all but one, which is why I support the log cabin republicans-they take out the one I don't agree with.