Skip to main content

View Diary: (NPR) Shadegg making excuses for hate speakers (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I only hear two voices (4+ / 0-)

    in this debate: Those who see the threat of violence and want to lessen it, and those who won't even acknowledge it.

    The Right is understandably defensive and wants to avoid the blame but collectively, they're not capable of voicing a fear of the actual violence (that I've heard).

    I haven't heard a concerned thought out of the bunch of them (outside the obligatory "thoughts and prayers" sound bite).  

    That's telling to me.

    I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

    by john07801 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:04:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, right now the Right is on the defensive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      john07801, nellgwen

      which is a typical and knee jerk response.  It's happened before and it will again.  

      Those who might be affected, however, are showing fear...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation

      Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

      King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

      New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

      The HuffPo Headline is misleading but the two government officials who are in front of this have no doubt that they face personal danger.

      It's a start.

      May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:31:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This was FP'd earlier (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        msmacgyver

        with the sentiment that King was simply covering his own ass.  Cynical as I am, I think he's actually trying to promote a "violence (and gun) control" meme for his image although every elected official faces the same danger.

        Behind the scenes, I'm sure Republicans are quaking at the prospects that they'll be blamed for the Tuscon shooting as well as the violent tenor of the recent debate.  (They're begging Rush and Beck to keep up the beat!)

        Yes.  It is a start.  I'm reeeally hoping that the focus on the violence and provocation can be maintained as we witness Rep. Giffords' recovery (as well as the others) and resumption of her elected duties.  

        I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

        by john07801 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:11:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it was FP'd with the cynical view that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          john07801

          he wanted protection for himself, period.  He's also Homeland Security so it is logical for him to put something like this forward.

          The GOP is so lost as a political force that they either can't or don't see that Rush Limbaugh is sitting at a desk in a studio, most likely has the best and most expensive security he can buy and is safe as kittens as he spews his hate and challenges to the crazies to act out.

          The Right simply is not capable of clear thinking, IMO.

          My thinking is that the shooter is going to be able to go with an insanity defense and that wouldn't require any outside provocation as in naming specific hate talkers.

          May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

          by msmacgyver on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:28:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            msmacgyver

            His Homeland Security status gives his position more credence.  But I can't help to think that it's a "gun control," "violence control" meme.  I'm cynical in that way.

            The right-thinking right appreciates the fringe right, right now.  Their views have been overpowered by stridency and they have not choice.  So, now, they're begging Limbaugh and Beck for political cover.

            Jared Loughner faces an uphill battle if he wants to allege insanity.  After Hinckley's successful defense, the rule were tightened (actually reversed) to a more stringent standard (the M’Naghten test) from years ago.  So much for social improvement.

            I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

            by john07801 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:55:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I agree that this is about potential violence (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              john07801

              to politicians.  

              Limbaugh and Beck are defending Palin both directly and indirectly by their defense of all irreponsible hate talkers.

              We need to keep the entertainers distinct from the politicians whose lives could be in danger.  The entertainers are safe and sound in their broadcast studios or bunkers.  

              If Loughner's insanity defense falls through, he will need a scapegoat and hate talkers would fit that requirement.  This isn't over by a long shot.

              May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

              by msmacgyver on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:28:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm neither a psych nor a lawyer, but... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I don't think the "not responsible by reason of insanity" is going to fly here. The shooter seems "crazy" in a non-medical sense, but the legal test in most jurisdictions is something more or less like: At the time of the act, was the shooter so out of touch with reality that he didn't realize what he was doing was criminal? And the burden is on his defense to demonstrate that--not on the prosecutor to refute it.

            The guy seems to be paranoid and a bit illogical, but (in my totally non-expert opinion) not insane in the legal sense.

      •  I don't like this. (0+ / 0-)

        It steers the focus towards what to do with unstable people with guns, when it should be on who's putting ideas into their heads.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site