Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not referring to this case specifically, and neither were the panelists. If you think the rhetoric in this 24 hour news environment and talk radio everywhere is the same as at any other point in your life, well, we will just have to respectfully disagree on that.
The 24 hour news cycle is more than 20 years old, so yes it has been pretty much the same for the last 20 years. The yellow journalism of the early 20th century makes todays discourse look down right civil. More recently the discourse during the 60s advocated violent overthrow of the government.
I do, to a point, agree...except that I also think that this kid was going to kill someone somewhere regardless of rhetoric. I think he really is that messed up.
There are posters in my own state forum that are literally screaming for Palin's head over this and for the first time I understand the revulsion that some here have for "liberal lunacy".
It would seem that this kid's focus on Gifford began before Palin ever left Alaska.
Even though his focus was on Gifford, WHAT made him decide that killing her would be a good thing or at the very least okay? Could it be that in his delusional thinking, hearing so many "legitimate" people out there on TV, radio, and the Internet, and in the recent Nov. elections calling for "revolution" and "2nd amendment rememdies," and "don't retreat, reload" meant that in our society now that it is not only okay to take violent action but that he might even become a "hero" of sorts?
Even though his focus was on Gifford, WHAT made him decide that killing her would be a good thing or at the very least okay? Could it be that in his delusional thinking, hearing so many "legitimate" people out there on TV, radio, and the Internet, and in the recent Nov. elections calling for "revolution" and "2nd amendment rememdies," and "don't retreat, reload" meant that in our society now that it is not only okay to take violent action but that he might even become a "hero" of sorts?
Or Obama's violent imagery of bringing knives to a gun fight. Or perhaps the loon wasn't aware of any of this. Perhaps he played a lot of video games and was influenced by their violence. Why is it so hard to wait for facts before drawing conclusions?
Or Obama's violent imagery of bringing knives to a gun fight. Or perhaps the loon wasn't aware of any of this. Perhaps he played a lot of video games and was influenced by their violence. Why is it so hard to wait for facts before drawing conclusions?
I could legitmately ask you the same question. What we know so far, from the "facts," is that he was very interested in politics.....not so much video games.
Even though his focus was on Gifford, WHAT made him decide that killing her would be a good thing or at the very least okay? Could it be that in his delusional thinking, hearing so many "legitimate" people out there on TV, radio, and the Internet, and in the recent Nov. elections calling for "revolution" and "2nd amendment rememdies," and "don't retreat, reload" meant that in our society now that it is not only okay to take violent action but that he might even become a "hero" of sorts?
It sounds as if he may have decided to kill her before the rhetoric reached such a fevered pitch.
I'm not condoning the rhetoric in any way and I do believe that it can have an effect on the thoughts and actions of those who listen to it. And it's reflective of the divisiveness that is ripping this country apart.
Its difficult to know what made him "think that killing her would be a good idea"...the sociopathic mind tends to be mysterious..but the usual pattern is that they fixate on someone, often a public figure, and aren't easily swayed from their course once that happens.
There have been a couple of cases in which the sociopathic killer has been inflamed by positive press involving their victims as well.
It's been...well, disconcerting to see liberals in the Alaska forum calling for Palin's arrest over this and becoming abusive to those who don't agree that it's warranted. The idiocy of one in particular has really opened my eyes.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 01-09-2011 at 05:17 PM..
I could legitmately ask you the same question. What we know so far, from the "facts," is that he was very interested in politics.....not so much video games.
Not really, we know no such thing, We do know he had a personal interest in the Congresswoman as he attended a rally for her in 2007. Everything else we know, we know from his Youtube videos. Burning a flag ranting about currency, not much else. Let's wait for the facts, shall we?
The 24 hour news cycle is more than 20 years old, so yes it has been pretty much the same for the last 20 years. The yellow journalism of the early 20th century makes todays discourse look down right civil. More recently the discourse during the 60s advocated violent overthrow of the government.
Again, we'll have to disagree. Even the 24 hour news cycle has expanded exponentially in more recent times. (I assume you weren't around for the early 20th century you discuss. )
Besides that, the discourse has become much more personal and vitriolic, hate-filled in nature. The 60's discourse, despite the violent anti government attitude you describe, was really not the same, because it was long before the media explosion we have now. And what is seen and heard in the media then goes out to the social networking sites and, well, forums like this one and countless others, to get spun and commented on and argued about some more.
It's not the same. But, no matter what your position on that issue, does it mean that because it's always been that way, there's no need to change it???
Again, we'll have to disagree. Even the 24 hour news cycle has expanded exponentially in more recent times. (I assume you weren't around for the early 20th century you discuss. )
Besides that, the discourse has become much more personal and vitriolic, hate-filled in nature. The 60's discourse, despite the violent anti government attitude you describe, was really not the same, because it was long before the media explosion we have now. And what is seen and heard in the media then goes out to the social networking sites and, well, forums like this one and countless others, to get spun and commented on and argued about some more.
It's not the same. But, no matter what your position on that issue, does it mean that because it's always been that way, there's no need to change it???
OK so we'll disagree. The 60s was much more violent without the 24 hour news cycle. With your logic that should not be.
I don't see the hate filled rhetoric you do. Many who describe it as such are those who simply disagree with others. I would be open to hearing what others think is hate speech, but what is one mans hate speech is another recitation of facts.
If this was an act of political violence I would not be surprised if someone from the other side will get taken out. Starting a crazy and frightening cycle.
The horrible economy, the divisiveness, and the demagoguery have made the US ripe for political violence/domestic terrorism. It says something good about our country that we've gone this far into nightmarish economic times without an escalation in political violence. If this was an act of political violence, Giffords and the others killed and wounded will not be the only victims. Political violence fueled by economic trauma kills democracies, from Weimar Germany to Venezuela.
The shooter was a complete loon who thought currency and grammar were the same thing. He burned an American flag while wearing a plastic garbage bag for pants. Attempting to assign convenient and self-serving political motivations for his actions - like Sarah Palin made him do it - ignores the FACT that his motives for doing anything he did were completely disconnected from logic and reason.
Interesting to note the bodies were barely cold when liberals took to the airwaves to announce with absolute certainty his source of motivation was Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Obviously liberals have nothing to combat conservatives with except blanket accusations of bigotry and hate speech (whatever that means), but to use a tragedy of this nature to try to control conservative political speech shows how truly desperate liberals have become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 