Republican lawmaker: Time to 'empty the clip' on illegal immigration

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I pointed out later in my post, it's to do with the context. Freedom of speech, opinion and so on- of course he is entitled to, he just should choose his words carefully in the public arena. And I agree, of course, a lot of things we do aren't necessary, but then again, the majority of us aren't in the public spot-light.

RE golf66:
Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but I still stand by what I said- why should guns even enter the occasion, or any saying in relation to guns, or hate, for that matter? The issue is totally unrelated, and it adds absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever to any statement he has made. I do understand why- it's rhetoric, to emphasise his point, and drum up support. I suppose it's the fault of the general public/us, in reality, as we are far more likely to listen to someone who uses such tactics, instead of someone who just states facts and delivers good points (that's not to detract from any of the actual points he made). We need everything spoon-fed to us, and obviously he tailored his speech to suit his audiance, as you say. Politics has become more about the individual and their popularity as a person, instead of how their policies would be beneficial- that's the problem. It's just human nature, I realise. Charisma is of more value than intelligence, or actually being "right", on occasion.

I'm not saying what he said will "inspire" some maniac- as some of you have pointed out, sociopaths/whatever don't need a push. All I'm saying is, I don't believe aggression has any place in politics- I suppose some of you would call it passion, and that's where our main differences probably lie

Originally posted by Resurrectio

they are only under more scrutiny, because they have to worry that their words will be twisted by ignorant people. This guy made a statement that was meant to convey a message of "fight till the end".. So what?

Your logic could not be more drama driven and flawed..

So using your logic.. you can't use the word fight to a person that lost someone in a fight?
So a politician can't talk about cars to someone that had a loved one killed by a car?

Do you believe in freedom of speech?? It sure doesn't sound like it..

Seems that you might believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't offend someone..

This conversation is over... You do not have the ability to understand what is going on here.

Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities - You are not Free to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

The person making the statement about 'emptying the clip' showed a lack of responsibility given the context of the times.

I like how you went on a tirade about 'Free Speech' and then declared 'This conversation is over' lol - I presume Free Speech is only meaningful when it's you that gets to deploy it?

Oz

reply to post by Resurrectio

Do you believe in freedom of speech?? It sure doesn't sound like it..
Seems that you might believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't offend someone..

He is free to say it all he wants...I'm free to call him a moron for doing so...voters are free to not re-elect them if they don't agree with his idiotic statements.

See...everyone is free..."freedom of speech" doesn't mean he is free to say whatever he wants and I must like it.

Did I ever say I think he should be arrested for saying what he did? Did I say he should endure any punishment at all besides the publics reaction?

Who is being dramatic now???

This conversation is over... You do not have the ability to understand what is going on here

I understand it perfectly...let me lay it out for you.

- Southern state senator makes a statement using a metaphor of shooting minorities
- Some people take offense to that statement because they consider it irresponsible and hateful language (me)
- Others defend that statement because they think people who get offended by the statement are sissies (you)
- Some that take offense to the statement give other examples of poor choice of words and why it isn't smart for a politician to use those (me)
- Some that are trying to defend moronic statements sling insults at the people offended by the statement...because that helps their argument
- After insults don't work...they just run away from the discussion.


See...I completely understand what is going on here )

reply to post by Ozscot


I am sorry.. I didn't know that freedom of speech, meant that I had to continue on with a conversation that I no longer want to be involved in.. Please point out how these 2 are related. Please explain in detail how me talking about freedom of speech, then declaring that I am done with this conversation are "funny".. Do your best, I'll be waiting.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Come on people...just because it is a "local saying" doesn't make it right.

Come on people ... just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
It was a local saying for a local population.
The 'examples' you gave are NOT Local caloquialisms.
Not even close.

Originally posted by Ozscot
[...]

Of course it wasn't his intention - but if it shows anything - it shows a huge lack of responsibility, intelligence, compassion (because whether he likes it or not he just made a vulnerable section of society feel even more vulnerable), and judgement. In short, it was damned stupid.

My reply on page 1.

But lack of compassion, intelligence and responsibility? It's just a phrase. If using a specific phrase is a lack of responsibility, then manufacturing a pitching machine that reaches 90mph is irresponsible because it too could hurt someone.

It would have been easy to use a different phrase, but chastising the speaker because someone with the mental capacity of a twig might take it the wrong way?

I'm all for more intelligent discourse in this world but the new meme of censoring speech because it has a tinge of violence to it is going to go in a bad, bad direction.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Resurrectio

 

Do you believe in freedom of speech?? It sure doesn't sound like it..
Seems that you might believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't offend someone..

He is free to say it all he wants...I'm free to call him a moron for doing so...voters are free to not re-elect them if they don't agree with his idiotic statements.

See...everyone is free..."freedom of speech" doesn't mean he is free to say whatever he wants and I must like it.

Did I ever say I think he should be arrested for saying what he did? Did I say he should endure any punishment at all besides the publics reaction?

Who is being dramatic now???

This conversation is over... You do not have the ability to understand what is going on here

I understand it perfectly...let me lay it out for you.

- Southern state senator makes a statement using a metaphor of shooting minorities
- Some people take offense to that statement because they consider it irresponsible and hateful language (me)
- Others defend that statement because they think people who get offended by the statement are sissies (you)
- Some that take offense to the statement give other examples of poor choice of words and why it isn't smart for a politician to use those (me)
- Some that are trying to defend moronic statements sling insults at the people offended by the statement...because that helps their argument

- After insults don't work...they just run away from the discussion.


See...I completely understand what is going on here

)

Dramatic much?

Southern state senator makes a statement using a metaphor of shooting minorities

"Empty the clip" is a "metaphor of shooting minorities" ?????- I am mistaken then.. I had NO idea that is what it meant... I am 100% on your side now.. I was under the impression it was meant to convey "fight till the end"

My apologies . I had this all wrong.

bwhahahahahahahah

Originally posted by eNumbra


My reply on page 1.

But lack of compassion, intelligence and responsibility? It's just a phrase. If using a specific phrase is a lack of responsibility, then manufacturing a pitching machine that reaches 90mph is irresponsible because it too could hurt someone.

It would have been easy to use a different phrase, but chastising the speaker because someone with the mental capacity of a twig might take it the wrong way?

I'm all for more intelligent discourse in this world but the new meme of censoring speech because it has a tinge of violence to it is going to go in a bad, bad direction.

You are generalising from the particular which is precisely what someone else did in this thread - NO ONE is saying a metaphor can't be used even if it has a touch of violence in it - we are saying THIS ONE shouldn't have been used given the controversy over the current context. Why are you blowing the specific out to encompass the general - we're not dealing with any other metaphor other than this particular one, in this particular instance, in a particular context, from a particular person (who should have known better) - It doesn't make him bad, there's even an argument for saying it doesn't make him wrong - it does however make him stupid.

Oz

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I've made the same joke as the law maker myself.

The thing is that most people from the south understand that "empty the clip" means do everything you can. I know many people that would use that phrase to mean "put forth all resources in dealing with the problem." It is a regional way of speaking. It takes a long phrase and breaks it down in to a simple phrase that draws on an understanding of a shared past and regional identity.

People are blowing it way out of proportion. The guy didn't mean for anybody to act in a violent manner. However, we all have to watch what we say. Don't upset the PC cart. Be a part of the whole, unless you are an immigrant, a minority, or a women. Then you get a special pass because of your oppression.

People didn't to start using critical thinking skills and thicken their skin.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


What thy left hanging out there was his "empty the clip" joke. When combined together it does make sense. I understand how some may see it as insensitive, but he never called for violence.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by Ozscot

 

I am sorry.. I didn't know that freedom of speech, meant that I had to continue on with a conversation that I no longer want to be involved in.. Please point out how these 2 are related. Please explain in detail how me talking about freedom of speech, then declaring that I am done with this conversation are "funny".. Do your best, I'll be waiting.

You said you were finished with the conversation? I make that two more posts since you last said that - whilst you also have the right to change your mind it shows that maybe what you say isn't precisely what you mean?

Oz

reply to post by FlyersFan

Come on people ... just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
It was a local saying for a local population.
The 'examples' you gave are NOT Local caloquialisms.
Not even close.

I understand it just fine.

"Time to "empty the clip" on illegal immigration"
=
"Time to "shoot" illegal immigration"
=
"Time to shoot hispanics"

What is there not to understand?


Are you honestly try to say that as long as it is a "local caloquialisms" that it is fine to use in all situations?

Let's see...here is an actual caloquialism...."blacker than a coal". If you use it to describe the night sky...fine. If you use it to describe an evil persons soul...yep...that's fine too. If you use it to describe the skin of a black person...NOT SO FINE.

What don't you understand about this...just because something is "caloquialism" doesn't mean it is fine to use in all situations.

Common sense goes a long way.

reply to post by Ozscot


So are you unable to back up what you said? You now have to go completely off topic to point out something of no consequence? typical.

Please explain how me wanting to stop discussing something has anything to do with freedom of speech.

I made a statement that I was done with the conversation, then read 2 replies from 2 people I had been talking with. So I decided to respond. Is there something out of the ordinary here? Are you grasping for straws? Do you employ this type and level of logic in all of your conversations?

Originally posted by MindSpin
"Time to "empty the clip" on illegal immigration"
=
"Time to "shoot" illegal immigration"
=
"Time to shoot hispanics"

Oh geeeze. No it doesn't. Not even close.

Common sense goes a long way.

yeah ... it does .. and it would be good if you used some here.
Like I said .. it was a local way of saying things to a local population.
It didnt' even come close to meaning what you are saying. Not even close.

reply to post by MikeNice81

So. You using the phrase yourself and you knowing what you meant in your own head somehow equates to you knowing what he meant in his head. And that others who are not from a certain region of the country or upbringing or mindset might perceive it differently means they are ignorant or enforcing political correctness or being thin-skinned ? I see. My critical thinking skills must be very rusty indeed.

As many others have already said, he had every right to say it, as others have every right to not like it. He's not simply being real and not kow-towing to PC standards, yet others are being "thin skinned." Interesting.

Hey...he made the choice, he said it, he owns it. How he chooses to deal with it, backpedal away from it, or justify it in his mind should something more ever come of this is his responsibility. He's put himself in a position where he gets more scrutiny than the average person. This is what comes of that.

This has nothing to do with thin skin or thick skin. And no one gets a "pass." That might again be your perception?

Originally posted by Ozscot
Why are you blowing the specific out to encompass the general - we're not dealing with any other metaphor other than this particular one, in this particular instance, in a particular context, from a particular person (who should have known better) -

Everything affects everything else. How one instance is treated will set precedent for how other instances will be treated. Politicians want this type of speech restricted so they can restrict everything they can label inflammatory.

It will lead down that road. end of story.

reply to post by FlyersFan


So you just completely ignored the example of the other colloquialism I used as an example showing how it can be used in the wrong way when using it with the wrong subject or at the wrong time. Which is what this guy did. He used it after someone did just empty a clip into a crowd of people (Laughner) and he directed to hispanics, who are already getting a lot of hate towards them.


I'm not the only one having an issue with this...there are obviously a lot of people upset with what he said...which is why it has made the news.

Local colloquialism or not...he was irresponsible and ignorant with his words.

Here's a prime example of some of the blowback the senator is now experiencing...

Since the comments were published in Sunday editions of the Cullman Times, some organizations that advocate for illegal immigrants have featured the story on their websites, and commenters in the blogosphere have weighed-in on exactly what they thought Beason did mean and whether they agreed with him . blog.al.com...

His choice. His consequences. He didn't "mean" to offend illegal immigrants, but he did.

Originally posted by MindSpin
So you just completely ignored the example of the other colloquialism I used as an example showing how it can be used in the wrong way when using it with the wrong subject or at the wrong time. Which is what this guy did.

I ignored it because it doesn't fit. This guy did NOT use it the wrong way or at the wrong time.

I'm not the only one having an issue with this...

The only people 'having an issue' with this are those who either don't understand the local colloquialism or don't want to understand it. They much prefer to make a problem out of something that isn't one. Either for partisan reasons, stubborness, or shear ignorance.

Local colloquialism or not...he was irresponsible and ignorant with his words.

It's a local colloquialism .. yes. He was not irresponsible or ignorant with his words.
Those being ignorant are the people who refuse to understand what he said.
It's just that simple.

reply to post by Golf66


Your post reminded me of something I read one time. A person asked George Patton how he could reconcile being a religous man and using so much profanity. His answer was, "you can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag."

In other words you speak in the way that motivates those you are speaking too. If you want to make a speech in NYC you speak differently than when speaking in Alabama. Don't fault a man for speaking to his audience in their language. Instead take time to understand what was really said and what it means.