Why do recognized leaders of the GOP use gun and violence metaphors in reference to political opponents in their tweets and bites?
‘Let’s start getting Nancy [Pelosi] ready for the firing line this November.’
Michael Steele, Republican National Committee
‘He [Ohio Democrat Steve Driehaus] may be a dead man. He can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati. The Catholics will run him out of town.’
John Boehner, US House of Representatives Minority Leader
‘Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!’
Sarah Palin, Twitter
Why don’t Republican leaders condemn threats and violence carried out in the name of ‘real Americans’ the way Muslim leaders condemn terrorism carried out in the name of Islam?
‘We continue to strongly condemn all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam, a religion of moderation and peaceful coexistence.’
Dakar Declaration signed by leaders of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, which represents 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Africa and Asia
Conservative Radio and TV personalities fan the hate fires; some of their followers respond with shameful, bullying acts. But why are official voices of the Republican party - Steele, Boehner, Palin - pouring on the violent rhetoric? Do they expect to gain supporters by lending their stature to extremist groups? If that’s their game, are these Republican leaders prepared to share the blame for blood in the streets?
‘We've had a double-digit increase in sales of handguns and tactical rifles beginning about a week before the [2008 Presidential] election. Manufacturers can't keep up with demand and we are seeing a backlog of orders ranging from six months to two years for certain products.'
Fox Keim, vice president of the Kittery Trading Post
If those of us who stand for civil discourse and honest protest do and say nothing in the face of the clamoring mob, we abandon our moral obligation to each other. In the dawning of this realization, citizens are gathering in real time, with real alternatives.
‘I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.’
Civility Pledge, Coffee Party USA
Photo Matt Fields, Sarah Palin and John Boehner
- Susan Weber's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I really loved reading your
I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to understand. Unlike additional blogs I have read which are really not tht good. I also found your posts very interesting. In fact after reading, I had to go show it to my friend and he enjoyed it as well!Thanks so much for this! I have not been this thrilled by a blog post for quite some time! You’ve got it, whatever that means in blogging. Anyway, You’re definitely someone that has something to say that people should hear. Keep up the wonderful job. Keep on inspiring the people!BCP-211 dumps
117-102 dumps
C-TB1200-07 dumps
1z0-001 dumps
EC0-350 dumps
1z0-144 dumps
000-152 dumps
000-104 dumps
Blood In The Tweets
I believe that there are people who will say whatever the public wants to hear. Rhetoric, yes! Do they care morally? No! Does the public as a whole investigate to get the truth? No!
By riling up the public, these so called future leaders can then offer security, which will equal votes. Words, metaphors are powerful indeed. This is leadership? Absolutly not! There are to many people in leadership positions or are striving for a leadership position that care not what they say nor what they do in order to achieve their goals.
Blood In The Tweets
Why do the Republicans constantly refer to violence in their speeches? It's the scare tatic. When people are threatened then they start looking for security.
In "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul, Ellul said"That in a Technological Society, people will take security and order over justice."
By referring to violence, people will become afraide and seek security. If the Republicans can represent themselves as givers to that security, then they also will get the votes.
Words and morality
I’ve brought this question here because it has to do with words. By the time a politician rises to prominence, I assume her/his word choice is intentional, strategic even, and your explanation for the motivation makes sense.
What confounds me is how they square their vocabulary with their morality. They claim to offer security while riling up the masses. Words, metaphors, are powerful. This is leadership?