Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

"Right-wing vitriol."

And what, I suppose, should we call that Huffington Post article? Left-wing vitriol is the best thing I can come up with.

 

[Badbird]

That was from RFK JR by the way. And the good news about this event is Gabrielle Giffords looking like she will survive and recover.

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't matter who it's from.

I hope Giffords lives. I feel awful about the people who were murdered.

But as long as the Left keeps trying to use this incident to taint the reputation of its opponent by linking them, the incident itself (which should be viewed as apolitical, despite the murderer's intentions) remains tainted and debased. We should mourn the tragedy, not view it as a tool for exploitation.

 

[Badbird]

The right is doing the same thing with this event. I don't get why either side is linking one or the other to this tragedy.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Right isn't doing quite the same thing. The Right wants to distance the incident from politics, but for the wrong reasons; it doesn't want the bad publicity that goes along with them having influenced an assassination attempt.

The Left media is trying to make connections between the incident and the politics of Right-wing conservatives like Sarah Palin. They might claim to be doing this because the connection exists, and maybe it does (i.e. maybe the shooter hated those communist liberals and did what he did in the name of the Tea Party); but the error here is in allowing the media to convince us that the shooter's sentiment is something endemic to all Right-wing party members.

 

[Badbird]

Saying the shooter is endemic to all right wing party members is like saying all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[Einherjar86]

The real issue lies in the influence of the media. If the connection exists, then they have the right to report on it and we have the right to know; but the medium by which such news is delivered and the partisan divisions that already exist in our country between political parties will create a negative stigma that will unfairly affect both conservative and liberal politicians. The entire incident becomes more than it truly is in the minds of the public.

 

[Pessimism]

The Right isn't doing quite the same thing. The Right wants to distance the incident from politics, but for the wrong reasons; it doesn't want the bad publicity that goes along with them having influenced an assassination attempt.

The Left media is trying to make connections between the incident and the politics of Right-wing conservatives like Sarah Palin. They might claim to be doing this because the connection exists, and maybe it does (i.e. maybe the shooter hated those communist liberals and did what he did in the name of the Tea Party); but the error here is in allowing the media to convince us that the shooter's sentiment is something endemic to all Right-wing party members.

Just to update you, the "right" has been spinning this as a leftist plot, and also stating that Loughner was a leftist because of his fondness for the Communist Manifesto.

I don't know where they are pulling this shit out of their asses, but Limbaugh and company have been doing this for days now. Hell, Palin just started speaking of blood libel... I mean what the fucking christ?





In OTHER news:
Az. Republican's are quitting

 

[Einherjar86]

Just to update you, the "right" has been spinning this as a leftist plot, and also stating that Loughner was a leftist because of his fondness for the Communist Manifesto.

I don't know where they are pulling this shit out of their asses, but Limbaugh and company have been doing this for days now. Hell, Palin just started speaking of blood libel... I mean what the fucking christ?

That's fucking ridiculous, and they should know better (not on any moral level, but simply on the basis that it's an utterly stupid tactic); but nonetheless, this is what I mean. The incident becomes more than what it is because of media coverage and manipulation. The whole thing is revolting.

EDIT: all I can find is Limbaugh responding to accusations that Right-wing talk radio and political views motivated Loughner. He says briefly that it would seem more obvious that Loughner maintained liberal views. Regardless, it makes little sense to blame the Left. There's little to no ammunition there.

 

[Matt]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Palin_Blood_libel.html

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Now that dumbass is getting destroyed for this comment. I hope this doesn't hurt her too much, I'd love to see her run for president.

 

[Badbird]

She wouldn't win if she run though. I think the Repubs want someone like Newt Gingrich, not someone who is a quitter. I bet they would bulid a time machine and bring back Barry Goldwater(a true conservative) before they want Palin. She's the right-wing version of Paris Hilton.

 

[Pessimism]

That's fucking ridiculous, and they should know better (not on any moral level, but simply on the basis that it's an utterly stupid tactic); but nonetheless, this is what I mean. The incident becomes more than what it is because of media coverage and manipulation. The whole thing is revolting.

EDIT: all I can find is Limbaugh responding to accusations that Right-wing talk radio and political views motivated Loughner. He says briefly that it would seem more obvious that Loughner maintained liberal views. Regardless, it makes little sense to blame the Left. There's little to no ammunition there.

You have to check his transcription archive; I'll thank the mysterious goon (Cartouche) who posted this lovely gem.

 

[Dak]

As long as Tom Brady is quoting the Huffington Post as evidence of anything, Limbaugh may as well be considered a credible source of news and insight as well.

When you have people from the "left wing" claiming that their opponents are responsible for violent acts because of the "inherent hate" in their message, it's quite hypocritical when their own educators speak directly of chaos and violence as opposed to supposed insinuations and characters of speech.

Regardless, the ignorance displayed by the immediate calling for more laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, by infringing on the 1st or 2nd ammendment, is collossal. No amount of laws stops someone from breaking laws.

I am also irritated by the hoopla surrounding the attempted killing of a Congresswoman, while the actual deaths get about a tenth of the coverage. There is nothing that makes a Congresswoman more special than any other average American.

The incident and the handling thereof shows absolute failure on behalf of all levels of government and media, and the answer is not that their needs to be more government and media, but that government is incapable of providing what it declares, and that media exists in this country as an end to itself **and is not worth anyone's time**.

 

[Badbird]

Huffington Post can be evidence if you don't look at the opinions blogs on there(like the RFK JR I posted). And about Gabby coverage, it's way more deserving of the coverage than any celebrity gossip out there.

 

[Dak]

Way to prove you don't know the difference between evidence and opinion. As far as comparing Giffords and celebrity gossip, at the root, what's the difference?

Here's a gem from the Huff, where in even the most moderate article I could find on gun control, the author shows he doesn't understand the root cause of "gun violence" (hint: it isn't guns):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/there-can-be-no-gun-contr_b_809442.html

Put another way, to use an admittedly simplistic and more symbolic than all-encompassing example, a father of a seven-year-old starting school in Philadelphia has to understand that guns don't pose the same threat to the son of a farmer in rural Iowa that they do in his community, while the farmer needs to understand that guns threaten the Philadelphia man's son's life on a daily basis, in ways the Iowa man has never experienced. Few laws or policies would adequately address both of their daily experiences.

I didn't know Philadelphia was cursed by such terrible black magic that allows guns to walk around murdering innocent 7 year olds at a whim, without the aid of a trigger pulling human behind them.

 

[Matt]

This whole issue is simple. Citizens don't need automatics or semi automatics even. We just gotta get rid of them. Hunting rifles or pistols are fine by me. The whole way we buy guns needs to change. It's gotta be a lot harder.

 

[Dak]

I find it amusing that the same people who think it's wrong to tell people what they can/can't do in the bedroom, think it's ok to tell people what they can/can't have in the bedroom, or on their table, or in their refrigerator, or what they say, etc.

You are a fucking hypocrite Mathias (not that you are alone), just own up to it please.

 

[Matt]

I find it amusing that the same people who think it's wrong to tell people what they can/can't do in the bedroom, think it's ok to tell people what they can/can't have in the bedroom, or on their table, or in their refrigerator, or what they say, etc.

You are a fucking hypocrite Mathias (not that you are alone), just own up to it please.

You're full of shit. I like the idea of keeping people safe and NOT having mass slayings every year or so. You're a fucking moron for thinking it's okay that these things happen. I don't care if you WANT to have an assault rifle, you shouldn't have the ability to kill fucking 25 people if you want to. Relating that to gay rights is bullshit.

Wait, I'm talking to the fucking insane conspiracy fucktard who thinks we need our guns to protect ourselves if the government decides to kill us or something. In that case, why don't well allow everyone to have bazookas or nukes?

 

[Badbird]

NEW YORK — Ronald Reagan's son suggests in a new book that his father suffered from the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease while he was still in the White House.

The memoir quotes excerpts from Ron Reagan's book "My Father at 100," published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA).

Reagan's son writes that he believes his father would have left office before his second term ended in 1989 had the disease been diagnosed then. U.S. News & World Report was the first to break the publishing embargo.

"I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else) was aware of his medical condition while he was in office," Reagan writes. "Had the diagnosis been made in, say 1987, would he have stepped down? I believe he would have."

Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after leaving office. The popular Republican president died in 2004 at age 93 from complications of the disease.

The younger Reagan recalls how his father became uncharacteristically lost for words and looked "lost and bewildered" during the 1984 presidential debates with Democratic rival Walter Mondale. He says his father may have suspected the onset of Alzheimer's in 1986 when he was flying over familiar canyons north of Los Angeles and became alarmed that he could no longer remember their names.

But Reagan says the issue of his father's health should not tarnish his legacy as the nation's 40th president.

"Does this delegitimize his presidency? Only to the extent that President Kennedy's Addison's disease or Lincoln's clinical depression undermine theirs," Reagan writes. "Better, it seems to me, to judge our presidents by what they actually accomplish than what hidden factors may be weighing on them."

He continues: "That likely condition, though, serves as a reminder that when we elect presidents, we elect human beings with all their foibles and weaknesses, psychological and physiological.


-Huffington Post

 

[Badbird]

You're full of shit. I like the idea of keeping people safe and NOT having mass slayings every year or so. You're a fucking moron for thinking it's okay that these things happen. I don't care if you WANT to have an assault rifle, you shouldn't have the ability to kill fucking 25 people if you want to. Relating that to gay rights is bullshit.

Wait, I'm talking to the fucking insane conspiracy fucktard who thinks we need our guns to protect ourselves if the government decides to kill us or something. In that case, why don't well allow everyone to have bazookas or nukes?

Dakryn is warning you on how Obama and co will try and kill you, when taking away every citizen in the United States.