Wise Words From After The Shooting

[darknight1]

Keith Olbermann couldn't have said it better. Here's text of what he said last Saturday, as it is on MSNBC's website:

"We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently. Left, right, middle, politicians own citizens, sane and insane. This morning in Arizona this age in which this country could accept the, quote, targeting of political opponents and putting bull's-eyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows has ended. This morning in arizona this time of the ever escalating borderline ecstatic invocation of violence, in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse, has closed. It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice, to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters. Or if those minds tonight are too closed or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those or too unmoved or too triumphant to make sure they have no further place in our system of government. Pima County sheriff took the extraordinary step of reporting details of not the crime scene alone but the political and cultural climate.

I think it's time as a country to do soul searching. I think rhetoric we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the tv business. What we see on tv and how our youngsters are being raised. It may be free speech but without consequences. Arizona is the mecca of prejudice and bigotry. Sarah palin's website put scrubbed bulls eyes on her does not repudiate her own part and violent imagery, she must be dismissed from politics and repudiated from members of her own party. If they fail to do so, be judged to silently get the tactic. They must be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party. If Jesse Kelly, whose campaign against congressman giffords does not repudiate this and admit even if it was indirectly, it contributed to the black cloud of violence. He must be repudiated by Arizona's republican party. If Alan West during his successful campaign told supporters to make his opponent afraid to come out of his own home does not repudiate those remarks and suggestions of violence and forced fear, he should be repudiated. If Sharron Angle who spoke of second amendment remedies does not repudiate that and urge those to think anew and again of what her words implied, she must be repudiated in Nevada.

If the tea party leaders took out of context a Jefferson comment and do not understand tonight, now, what that really means and these leaders do not tell their followers to add hor violence and all threat of violence, they must be repudiated. If Glenn Beck who obsesses about gold and debt and who joked about killing Michael Moore and Bill O'reilly who said Tiller the Killer until it was burn so into the minds of their viewers. If they do not begin their broadcasts with an apology. then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by viewers and listeners, by all politician who is appear on their programs including President Obama and his interview with Fox on Super Bowl Sunday and by the networks that employ them. If they are not responsible for what happened in Tucson, they must be responsible for doing what they can to make certain Tucson does not happen again. Do not rededicate ourselves to our individual lens and suggestions of violence. however inver tent they might have been, we deserve the re repudiation of our viewers and our networks. Here, once in a clumsy metaphor, I made an unintended statement of then Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call of physical violence. It was wrong then, it is more wrong tonight, I apologize for it tonight.

I urge people of every political conviction to use my comment as means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery that goes so easily and slip into one as opposed to violence as me how easily and pervasively and disastrously it can slip into the deranged mind. If the alleged terrorist, Jared Loughner wanted to shoot into the crowd, we have, never the less, for years been building up to a moment just like this. Despite the Youtube videos of what refers to him referring to the eighth congress, Gabby Gifford's district. Assume it's coincidence, the violence is not. The rhetoric descended past the ugly and past the threatening and the fantastic into the murderous. We will not return to the 1850s when a pro-slavery congressman nearly beat to death an antislavery senator and cut to death with broad swords. pro-slavery advocates. We will not return to the 1960s when an insane desire of fame or hatred, a president was assassinated. An ultraconservative was shot at and paralyzed and a leader of peace was murdered on a balcony. We will not. Tonight, what Mrs. Palin and West and Angel and Beck and O'Reilly and what you and I must understand was that the man who fired today did not fire add a democratic congresswoman and her supporters. He was not just a madman inspired by daily temptations, by slightly less madmen to do things they would not condone. He fired into our liberty and our rights to live and agree or disagree in safety and freedom for fear it will cost us our lives or health or safety. The bulls eye will have been on Kelly, you or me. The horror would have been, could still be just as real and unacceptable. At a time of such urgency, we as Americans, conservative or liberal, should pour our hearts and souls into politics. We should not, none of us, not Gabby Giffords or any conservative pour our blood. Anyone who hints otherwise or stays silent now should have no place in our political system and should be denied that place, not by violence, but by being shunned and ignored. It is a simple pledge. It is to the point and essential that every Americann politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now. I say it first and freely: violence or the threat of violence has no place in our society. I apologize for and repudiate any act or anything in my past which may have encouraged violence. For whatever else each of us may be, we are all Americans.

Good night and good luck."

After both hearing every word spoken on the state of our nation, and re-reading it, I'm left speechless. So, to sum up how I feel?

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Edited January 15, 2011 by darknight1

[Slogo]

Though I am unaware about how much flack you're going to get for posting something of Olbermann's (my best guess is a lot). They are words well spoken. The problem is that our country, in general, loves violence. Our citizens will get all pissed off if you're trying to give everybody free healthcare but if it involves going to war most of those same people are all for it (no matter what how much it costs).

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

That was a well said speech by him. What most people need to seperate his his political viewpoint. Yes, I do believe the typical trolls are gonna get on their horn with their, "hurr durr, fucking faggot liberal! We shouldn't listen to him or anything he says because he's liberal, and anyone who does is a stupid faggot too hurr durr"

But.. well.. I say we take up the spirit of Keith's idea and.. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

That's what we, on here, can do for our own group, don't even agknowledge them.

Liberal or not, Keith is the voice of reason for this situation. Deal with it.

[Destroit]

I love how NO right-wing person has said anything negative yet...and still the pre-bashing commences .

BUT now that I'm on the topic...I DO love how he was completely unbiased and bashed pretty much only on republicans, really, well played. Other than that bullshit rhetoric, even though it contradicts the "togetherness" at the end of his message, it was well put. And *SHOCK!* that's coming from someone who leans a little to the right .

I love how NO right-wing person has said anything negative yet...and still the pre-bashing commences .

BUT now that I'm on the topic...I DO love how he was completely unbiased and bashed pretty much only on republicans, really, well played. Other than that bullshit rhetoric, even though it contradicts the "togetherness" at the end of his message, it was well put. And *SHOCK!* that's coming from someone who leans a little to the right .

[DJ Nocker]

TL:DR

Ill keep my gun.

[Destroit]

TL:DR

Ill keep my gun.

[KatRN05]

TL:DR

Ill keep my gun.

It is our right. But yeah, I agree with Chernobyl. So much for "togetherness" if you are just going to bash one party or group or politician. This speech by Olbermann is just more blame-game. No one incited this guy to kill 6 people and wound many.

Edited January 15, 2011 by KatRN05

[darknight1]

Cherynobly and Kat, while both sides are equally guilty of inciteful speech, you see it coming more from the right then you do the left. So I don't think Olbermann has been entirely partisan with that speech.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

Well look at how some people who dislike the democratic and liberal ideals act previously on this board. So it's kind of expected that a few ignorant minds would come here to troll. I'm not really doing the blame game, just one of those inB4shitstorm posts.

[creatureofthenyte]

Cherynobly and Kat, while both sides are equally guilty of inciteful speech, you see it coming more from the right then you do the left. So I don't think Olbermann has been entirely partisan with that speech.

I have to disagree, I think Mr. Ogreman was partisan in that speech.

Mr. Ogreman, got suspended from MSNBC, for donating money to Democrats' campaigns.

So, Yes he Is partisan.

Barely 2 hours after the incident happened, The Daily Kos website was already hard at work, trying to politicize the incident, trying to blame the Republicans for it.

The same thing happened after Kennedy was shot; history repeats itself now.

I further disagree with the notion that inciteful speech comes more from the right then the left; Just look at anything Alan Grayson has said in the last 2 yrs; most memorably: "The Republicans healthcare plan is: "Die Quickly".

Or, Oliver Stone's movie: W. which was about assassinating George W. Bush.

[darknight1]

Creature, W was a biographical movie about George W. Bush, not some call for his assassination. Olbermann called on those on the left, right, and in the center spectrum of politics to tone it down. You have to both listen to the speech itself and read between the lines of the text. The words we throw at each other in this country are not at all helpful. This must stop before our nation ends up in tatters.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

That would be a fine and dandy speech... if it was based in a reality where political speech of any kind had anything to do with the shooting.

The reality is that the shooter was bat shit crazy. He had a beef with his local politician. He felt slighted by her. His problem with her started in 2007... before Sarah Palin ever hit the national scene and before the Tea party rose from the ashes of our Freedoms.

This isn't about guns. Or gun rights. This isn't about even about freedom of speech.

The left is trying to tell us how to think.

btw.. the open calls on Twitter for Sarah Palin to be shot and killed really need to stop.

[TheGimp]

That would be a fine and dandy speech... if it was based in a reality where political speech of any kind had anything to do with the shooting.

The reality is that the shooter was bat shit crazy. He had a beef with his local politician. He felt slighted by her. His problem with her started in 2007... before Sarah Palin ever hit the national scene and before the Tea party rose from the ashes of our Freedoms.

This isn't about guns. Or gun rights. This isn't about even about freedom of speech.

The left is trying to tell us how to think.

btw.. the open calls on Twitter for Sarah Palin to be shot and killed really need to stop.

i think thats what a lot of people think...not everyone but a good majority. it was a problem from the past and carried out by a man that was clearly insane, well for anyone going into public like that and shooting everyone he could see and killing people is insane but i think he had a few french fries short of a happy meal. and i agree it had nothing to do with the tea party or gun rights and what not, its just a crazy man thats caused more chaos

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15blow.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

"Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.

The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.

Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof. "

Emphasis added by me.

BTW... The author... before you start trying to call him a racists gun loving violent white republican... is a black liberal democrat.

[darknight1]

You miss the point, Gaf. How many other mentally unbalanced individuals are effected by violent rhetoric used by those on the left, the right and in the center? You make this seem as if it's nothing but a liberal conspiracy to destroy the entire right.

[Slogo]

i have some words of wisdom for everybody

EVERYBODY IS FUCKING NUTS!!!!!!!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You miss the point, Gaf. How many other mentally unbalanced individuals are effected by violent rhetoric used by those on the left, the right and in the center? You make this seem as if it's nothing but a liberal conspiracy to destroy the entire right.

Give an example.

and please... read the article I posted.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OMG! I can't beleive it hasn't dawned on us all before. I know why this guy started shooting people! He was listening to the damned Rock Music!

or maybe he was watching too many action films...

or played video games...

[darknight1]

I give. I can't convince a person that it's all sides who are indirectly responsible for political shootings through their words, especially when whomever the individual in question may be has been fed Fox News' pro-conservative dogma via IV line for so long they wouldn't know what else to think. In other news, my no-talent, overplayed bands rant is done. And god, is it nice to finally see the Beastie Boys be mentioned in that thread.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

Well look at how some people who dislike the democratic and liberal ideals act previously on this board. So it's kind of expected that a few ignorant minds would come here to troll. I'm not really doing the blame game, just one of those inB4shitstorm posts.

Point above proven by post below..

I have to disagree, I think Mr. Ogreman was partisan in that speech.Mr. Ogreman, got suspended from MSNBC, for donating money to Democrats' campaigns.So, Yes he Is partisan.Barely 2 hours after the incident happened, The Daily Kos website was already hard at work, trying to politicize the incident, trying to blame the Republicans for it.The same thing happened after Kennedy was shot; history repeats itself now.I further disagree with the notion that inciteful speech comes more from the right then the left; Just look at anything Alan Grayson has said in the last 2 yrs; most memorably: "The Republicans healthcare plan is: "Die Quickly". Or, Oliver Stone's movie: W. which was about assassinating George W. Bush.

The highlighted parts are the exact ignorance he's saying we should shun. Did the same thing with Maher.. and even Michael Moore.. which I can't even really count since he does make himself a target... oh snap... i said target... oops lol

Also, it's stupid to be like, ooh ohh! he's donated to democrats! suspend him! that's retarded, he has the freedom to have a personal prefrence to whatever political party he wants just any of us have the right to. Also, if it's his money, he can do with it whatever he wishes.. it would be his own money after all.

I don't get it, why is it every time someone who has a liberal or democratic viewpoint is usually bastardized like that by republican laws..

..you never see fox news get in trouble for their heavy republican and conservative slant to their reports.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Epic_Fail_Guy

[darknight1]

I'm frustrated with him, EFG. The same as the other guy who just prompted me to give up. I can't get them to see the light here. It's not a "liberal" conspiracy to get everyone to do everything according to what "liberals" want. It's an appeal for everyone, liberal, conservative and moderate to tone it down so we won't be lead into violent conflict. Enough is enough. It's taken me a while to realize this. How do you argue with someone who's just happy listening to what Rupert Murdoch, a foreign citizen who has no business injecting his views into the nation? And a foreign citizen who clearly argues almost in favor of theocracy at that.

[KatRN05]

We don't even know what the guy's political leanings were to begin with so how can we conclude that he was influenced by politics? Have you seen the videos this guy posted on Youtube? He was obsessed with currency, thought we were all being brainwashed by government and the college bookstore was illegal. Hmm, he sounds a like he is a few cards short of a full deck.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Also, it's stupid to be like, ooh ohh! he's donated to democrats! suspend him! that's retarded, he has the freedom to have a personal prefrence to whatever political party he wants just any of us have the right to. Also, if it's his money, he can do with it whatever he wishes.. it would be his own money after all.

He has a legally binding contract that says he can't unless he wants to find himself fined, fired or suspended.

darknight1 - Give a real life example of someone attacking someone else because of political speech. No one else has been able to do that. No one.

It is nice to see Darknight and EFG embracing the Bush doctrine of Preemptive strikes though,

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

How do you argue with someone who's just happy listening to what Rupert Murdoch, a foreign citizen who has no business injecting his views into the nation?

I don't know... whats it like parroting George Soros?

[taysteewonderbunny]

I've scrolled over all the posts in here merely skimming them and not reading them because I can imagine the back and forth. Here's my two cents:

Regardless of whatever rhetoric the shooter was fed, in the end, the decision to kill rested with him solely.

This does not mean that hate speech isn't despicable. Invective moves people away from rational thinking into emotion-filled responses which further entrench us in our allegiances minimizing the opportunities for healthy debate and effective compromise.

We need to stop being assholes. The people we disagree with are people, just like us, albeit with different ideas on how to accomplish surprisingly similar goals. Let's not forget this and treat them with the basic respect they deserve.