When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[TRoaches]

Troached the survey question in itself alone is kind of irrelevant, beside the fact it is "misleading"...

 

Why did you cite something that is irrelevent?

 

 

What Lapierre is doing whether or not you think it's a lie is dangerous when the sole purpose is to misslead the public with fear and hate "speculating" peoples guns are going to be taking away Just to get new members and sell more guns....

 

You claim that this is the sole purpose of his rhetoric, so what is his motivation? What does LaPierre have to gain from spreading fear and hate?

 

 

Sure, Obama might have not have lead up to his promiss trying to get the troops back but it is hardly rhetoric to spread fear and hate into the minds of the public...

 

I would argue that Obama's campaign lies, and his election based on those lies, has spread as much or more fear and hate among the public than anything LaPierre could ever say. Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public? Do you think that the increased casualties in Iraq due to Obama's lies have perhaps spread some fear and hate? Don't you think drone strikes around the region that kill civilians are a cause of fear and hate? Do you think nothing of the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others who have been killed because Obama lied when he claimed to be opposed to militarism and in fact has behaved quite militantly?

 

Compared to gun violence in the US, which has actually decreased in the last decade, I think our increased military aggression is a much bigger problem, and it was enabled through a "false narrative" that the president used to get elected. That aggression has spread much fear and hate into the minds of the public, if you consider the public to include people who are not Americans.

Edited June 9, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lisnpuppy]

This is the precise wording of the survey question that you are alleging is a lie:

 

 

 

President Obama has supported a national gun registration system allowing federal government officals to keep track of all your firearm purchases. Do you oppose national gun registration?

Notice that it does not say "Obama currently supports", but rather "Obama has supported". It is a past tense reference to what he has supported in the past. When he was a legislator his stated position was in favor of banning all semi-auto guns, banning all handguns, and tracking all gun purchases at the state level via mandatory registration.

 

Given that the sharing of information between state and federal agencies was one of the big reasons behind the creation of the patriot act it stands to reason that any law enforcement or security information gathered by individual states constitutes a federal database once it is aggregated by the DHS. The line between state level and federal level has been nearly non-existent since 2001 at least with regard to law enforcement.

 

When he ran for president he adopted a more moderate position on gun control but the language of the survey question is not restricted to his current position or the position he has held while president. Therefore, it is not a lie.

No it is this:

The survey, provided to Mother Jones by a reader, claims that "President Obama has supported a national gun registration system allowing federal government officials to keep track of all your firearm purchases." This is an all-too-common NRA talking point. NRA honcho Wayne LaPierre echoed it in January, saying that Obama "wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry."

 

The bill and the comments by the President said that the bill would not do that. I have read a great deal bout this issue as I live in West Virginia and since Manchin sponsored it, it was dissected to death.

 

Also if the President recanted and became more moderate in his outlook then if LaPierre continues to say this it is untrue. If he said..the President once supported it and I think he will again if these bills pass...then ok.

[colourwheel]

 

Troached the survey question in itself alone is kind of irrelevant, beside the fact it is "misleading"...

 

Why did you cite something that is irrelevent?

 

By itself it is irrelevent... you seem to be missing the bigger picture citing the "article" not the "survey" itself. The alone survey wasn't so much a lie, it was just grossly missleading.....

 

 

What Lapierre is doing whether or not you think it's a lie is dangerous when the sole purpose is to misslead the public with fear and hate "speculating" peoples guns are going to be taking away Just to get new members and sell more guns....

 

You claim that this is the sole purpose of his rhetoric, so what is his motivation? What does LaPierre have to gain from spreading fear and hate?

 

New members and sell more guns. That could be his motive too... You have stated before in this thread earlier he really represents "gun manufacturers" instead of gun owners, even when he publically speaks he "claims" to be speaking on behalf of "all gun owner across the nation"....

 

 

Sure, Obama might have not have lead up to his promiss trying to get the troops back but it is hardly rhetoric to spread fear and hate into the minds of the public...

 

I would argue that Obama's campaign lies, and his election based on those lies, has spread as much or more fear and hate among the public than anything LaPierre could ever say. Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public? Do you think that the increased casualties in Iraq due to Obama's lies have perhaps spread some fear and hate? Don't you think drone strikes around the region that kill civilians are a cause of fear and hate? Do you think nothing of the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others who have been killed because Obama lied when he claimed to be opposed to militarism and in fact has behaved quite militantly?

 

You can argue all you want about this.... But Did I ever suggest anywhere in this entire thread that Obama hasn't lied? Lets be realistic here... every president in history has never lead up to "all" their promisses.... Just because you don't like what a President is doing while they are in power does not make them a liar that is trying to strike fear and hate into the public mind.... What would really be the purpose of doing that, especially when they are already holding power?

 

 

 

Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public?

 

Speaking to on a "national" stage Obama is really trying to strike fear and hate in the Iraqi public? /sarcasm

 

While we are at it lets just switch the focus off LaPierre and talk about Obama now? ****/more sarcasm****

Edited June 9, 2013 by colourwheel

[colourwheel]

oops double post....

Edited June 9, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

@Lisnpuppy: The survey does not make any claims about any bills. It says that the president has supported gun registries and purchase tracking, but makes no statements about his currently stated position or agenda. There are no false claims made in the survey. If someone is mislead by the survey it is because they are not thinking critically about what they are reading. That is their problem, not the NRA's.

 

By itself it is irrelevent... you seem to be missing the bigger picture citing the "article" not the "survey" itself. The alone survey wasn't so much a lie. IT was just grossly missleading.....

You seem to be missing the point that, when challenged to cite a lie told by the NRA, you instead cited a verifiable statement of fact made by the NRA which was presented by you as a lie. If anything, that seems much more misleading than anything that the survey contained.

 

 

New members and sell more guns. That could be his motive too... You have stated before in this thread earlier he really represents "gun manufacturers" instead of gun owners

I said no such thing, though for what its worth I would not disagree with that statement either.

 

 

You can argue all you want about this.... But Did I ever suggest anywhere in this entire thread that Obama hasn't lied?

No, but you did claim that his rhetoric does not spread fear and hate. I was only pointing out that his rhetoric has spread plenty of both to areas around the world. For incomprehensible reasons the very same liberals who were so critical of Bush's military aggression (and rightly so) have been silent with regards to Obama's escalation of that aggression.

 

 

Just because you don't like what a President is doing while they are in power does not make them a liar that is trying to strike fear and hate into the public mind.... What would really be the purpose of doing that, especially when they are already holding power?

Politicians have always utilized public fear as a method of distraction so that they can push the unsavory parts of their policy with less scrutiny. It is one of the oldest and most widely utilized political manipulations used throughout history.

 

The gun issue is a perfect example: Even though gun violence has decreased in the US it is at the forefront of the public policy agenda. It has received more press coverage than perhaps any other topic. Meanwhile, the President has escalated our foreign military imperialism and interventionism, assisted in the toppling of a few governments, set a precedent of using drone strikes to assassinate US citizens without due process, and members of his administration have been implicated in using the IRS as a tool to target political opposition groups as well as selling weapons to mexican drug cartels. He is looking more and more like an extra-corrupt reincarnation of Reagan.

Edited June 9, 2013 by TRoaches

[sukeban]

I don't really want to get too far into this discussion as it seems to be a thoroughly beaten horse, but I would have a question for the Europeans out there (UK, France, Germany, perhaps others) regarding your laws prohibiting speech on certain dangerous topics--most obviously anti-Semitism and the denial of the Holocaust (an abridgement of free speech that I agree with, TBH), but also inclusive of other limitations.

 

I am not particularly familiar with the statutes governing free speech in your nations, but, given these prohibitions, I would hazard that they are not as permissive as the First Amendment of the Constitution. (I don't mean that as a knock either, as every nation has a different political and social context and, in any event, it is obvious that your countries and relevant press outlets are terrific even without free speech absolutism.) Fundamentally, I would like to get at the legal rationale for these prohibitions, be they to promote social cohesion, diminish communitarian hatred, or (to be facetious) promote academic integrity.

 

In any case, I only bring this up because I routinely cringe when I see people spouting off prima facie lies like "Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan/Communist/Antichrist" etc. Such speech is not really of any social utility and only exists to promote hatred/misunderstanding as opposed to establishing any meaningful dialogue. It might be "political speech" in a nebulous sense, but I would like to see would-be demagogues try a bit harder and come up with better arguments that are capable of winning a rational debate rather than resorting to lies and ad-hominems that should logically be considered slander.

 

Obviously, this gets into choppier waters when one must judge what is truth and what is untruth, especially regarding opinions and predictions, but in such areas where concrete facts about a matter truly do exist (e.g. the Holocaust happened, Obama is an American citizen) and actors are intentionally and willfully spreading misinformation about this, I do not really have any philosophical qualms with holding them responsible. In practice, however, I think the Framers were wise to punt on the issue and establish near-absolute freedom of speech within the Constitution, as governments are hardly ideal types either, and the power to prosecute speech could, in the wrong hands, end up in gross abuse. So as much as I would philosophically like to see the current purveyors of misinformation held to some sort of account for the damage wrought by their collective ignorance, I would not approve of the government actually stepping in and doing so.

Edited June 9, 2013 by sukeban

[bben46]

This is rapidly degenerating into just another gun control argument - and far off topic. I tend to shut those off to keep people from getting so incensed at the other side that they get themselves banned. So consider this a warning that if it continues as a gun control debate I will cut it off.

 

BTW the original topic is based on the concept that political rhetoric was the root cause of the ricin laced letters being sent to the Prez and a few other people - and said rhetoric should not be protected by the US Bill of rights. - Turns out that the entire purpose was not even political or related to any the rhetoric. The person arrested is a woman who sent them to spite her husband as part of a divorce. She created the letters and their 'rhetoric' with the express purpose to put the blame on hubby to get him arrested. And claimed that she KNEW that no one would be harmed because of the mail is checked first. :pinch:

Here is a news article from NBC: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18829206-texas-woman-arrested-in-ricin-letters-to-obama-bloomberg-officials?lite

[Nintii]

He who flings mud loses ground ... he who flings mud and sends ricin letters goes to the bottomless pit.

[Lisnpuppy]

that would be she...she sent ricen letters..lol

[juderodney]

 

 

 

What do you think motivated this person to send out these ricin laced letters to public officals?

 

Where could this person possibly have gotten the idea someone is going to come to their house and take their precious fire arms away?

Looks like I'll have to change my answers on this one!

 

To the first question: such a hatred for her husband that she doesn't care whom she hurts in order to get him into trouble.

 

The second question is still irrelevant.

Edited June 10, 2013 by juderodney