Thursday, February 24, 2011

Union rhetoric has, of course, been perfect...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162533209090102.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158283198424372.html

Like the articles Peter posted, these articles are making something out of nothing. Just wanted to point out that there are always "scandals" on both sides.

7 comments:

PBM said...

Talking about "getting bloody" and "having a fight on our hands" is still much different than saying "use live ammo" or Glenn Beck talking about choking Michael Moore to death. I think this whole thing political correctness has gone overboard with rhetoric. In any situation where there are two distinct sides going against each other, there has to be some sort of rhetoric that talks about targeting or job-killing, or eliminating, or fighting. I just think "use live ammo" and "get armed and dangerous" (Bachmann) and "second-amendment remedies" (Sharon Angle)cross that line by blatantly using rhetoric that is not only violent, but clearly refers to using guns.

Megan said...

Walker was pictured in crosshairs...

PBM said...

That is what I mean by targeting, and by saying that your just dodging my actual point that there is a trend of right-wing public figures talking explicitly about gun violence, or in Glenn Beck's case, just graphic violence. The only reason I see the Sarah Palin targeting differently is that she said "RELOAD," which is another reference to guns. I don't have a problem with her use of crosshairs, as they are the universal sign for a target.

Megan said...

I think this whole rhetoric discussion has become so overblown. Everyone is obviously going to become passionate and say stupid things once in a while. The books we read in class prove that the rhetoric has ALWAYS been heated, (at one point so heated that there was a civil war!) Every sane person knows that Sarah Palin is not endorsing shooting liberals and Capuono was not actually advocating getting bloody. Everyone needs to stop talking about "harmful" rhetoric. It is just a distraction from the real problems. Or maybe the government should put restrictions on what the media and congresspeople can say.

Megan said...

And Patrick, ignore the part in the first article that attacks your office! I really only read the "Let's get bloody" part.

Patrick_Landers said...

don't worry Megan, they're not talking about mine (I'm the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the article is talking about the Center for American Progress). They all sound the same, don't worry

PBM said...

Yes, I completely agree that heated rhetoric is a necessary part of political debate. But elected officials should not be talking about guns as frequently as Republicans have been recently. I already gave 3 examples and I could probably find more. I don't count Sarah Palin as an example, and I agree that "getting bloody" could definitely be interpreted in a violent way. My basic point that you keep dodging is that Republicans need to stop using guns as part of this political rhetoric. I know your on their side, but I think you know that someone saying "live use ammo" on union protesters is inappropriate.