Manny, I kind of get your point in a Sesame Street kind of way but none of us operate in a vacuum. Whackos are still Whackos.
Why bother raising your kids then, CC? You guys can't act like like this is due to some kind of predetermination then act like parenting means something. Either our lives are influenced by outside actions or they're not.
What amazes me most is how some people can say asking "why" is actually irresponsible. That is a concept completely baffling to me. By nature I want to know why everything happens and I want to understand it.
I agree that political speech is too hyperbolic in the mainstream as well as within fringe groups, but the best we can hope to do is simply shame those who engage in such hyperbole... We'll never be rid of it and I kind of agree with the Slate column that it's probably an outlet for a lot of crazy people that PREVENTS more violent acts from happening by giving them an outlet for their irrational rage.
I'd love to see people and our news outlets take the hyperbole down a notch, I just can't pin this tragedy on those things. That's not to say I don't think other violent acts could ever be influenced by media sensationalism though... , I could even see the sensationalism and blame-mongering around this story potentially leading to some scary "payback" actions. Imagine that.
Dude, he taught for 2 years before resigning and living in a cabin, as a recluse for over two decades. Yeah, I'd say he had an aversion to people as well as rational thought.
Luddite's hate technology. To avoid technology he moved to a cabin. That doesn't mean he would have avoided others if they had come to live in his cir stances.
Now, to be fair I'm not extremely well versed on whether or not he had some aversion to people - he very well may have - but I don't see that a requirement for where he lived based on his views on technology.
I'm fairly interested now though. Might have to do some reading up on Kaczynski.
World News should be limited again to only three channels and only be shown from 6PM to 6:30PM.
Then we should have only safe well balanced shows on TV like "I Love Lucy" and "Bonanza"
Violent like this never happened back then.
He's kind of an outlier, really. He was admitted to Harvard at 15 or 16. A freaking brainiac, which may be the root of his issues....you know the "fine line" we always hear about.
If I had to watch Bonanza I might murder someone. Just saying.
I don't know - I'm really interested now though.
Too bad we can't go back to an era when there was more civility in public discourse -- say the 1960's.
Yeah, how about 1963. Lee Harvey Oswald.
The little Communist.
There has never been civility in politics, just
a lack of not reporting all that went on.
Or how about in the late 40's and the 50's.
While the Congressmen were ducking and
Truman was told to quit walking cause the
Puerto Rican's were gonna get him.
Or Abraham Lincoln. Hope he enjoyed the
play before he got his head blown off.
Lots of civility throughout our history and
world history.
There is a great example of what I am talking about. That is a completely out in the open threat for violence by a right wing nut job. Thats from the article RG posted in his birther's thread."I will file a motion for reconsideration," she said on her website, adding that she has "evidence of highly su ious activity in several federal courts."
"If we don't clean up corruption in the judiciary, in the White House, citizens of this country will have no trust in the system and will take justice in their own hands. This is dangerous," she wrote.
Orly Taitz is a joke. Her only game at this point is to make her failure as notorious as possible. She is succeeding, and you are helping her, Manny.
You are her megaphone, drawing attention to her in this thread, as if birthers were somehow specifically connected to the shooting of Rep. Giffords and the massacre of many more.
They are not.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/ChrisFi...als_in_america
Chris Field
The 50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America
Email Chris Field | All Posts By Blogger
On Nov. 2, Americans sent a message to the liberals in Washington: Stop it!
After less than two years of watching a far-Left administration and Congress show their contempt for the citizenry and pursue a radical agenda that only hyper-liberal-progressive voters could support, the nation woke up and realized the disaster highlighted by the 2008 election of Barack Obama: Liberals had been given way too much power.
Americans have witnessed with disgust the progressives' efforts to tear at the very fabric of America.
We don't want to "radically transform" the country.
We don't want to reject our founding principles of liberty and limited government.
We love our Cons ution and respect it.
The midterms were a rejection of the Left. But that's where we must be careful -- like a wounded animal, liberals are dangerous when exposed and backed into a corner.
The Townhall editorial staff saw the threat radical liberals are to our country and compiled a list of those who pose the greatest danger to the future of the republic. The toughest part was limiting the list to 50, but we did it. We had two requirements: 1) They had to be living, which is one reason Saul Alinsky didn't make the list; and 2) they had to be based in America, thus no Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame.
One thing subscribers have quickly noted: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton made the list. Tells you something about the people who did, doesn't it?
Suggesting that Tea Partiers and birthers have blood on their hands is no way to start an mutually uplifting dialogue. Just saying.
They don't have to be specifically linked to be an example of rhetoric that does far more harm that good. I have never once stated that that quote or any other quote from anyone in the birther movement caused this attack. Quite frankly I expect far better reading comprehension from you, WH.
Its laughable that I am her megaphone when I quote her statement to the press. Acting as though we're not allowed to talk about the ramifications of people who are getting press coverage because it makes their name bigger is utter foolishness when almost a fourth of the nation subscribes to their belief regarding president Obama.
You got stuck on Orly Taitz. I think we're all aware of that.
Inferential. WTF does Orly Taitz or anything she said, have to do with the OP?
Taitz and those like her encouraged the shooter to do what he did, something like that?
It was actually Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Thats why we need the fairness doctrine.
Perhaps reading the evolution of the thread will answer that question for you. A few hundred replies into a thread and sometimes the scope of the discussion morphs outside of the limited scope of the OP.
The fairness doctrine isn't coming back. It does seem to be a popular bogey-man, though.
(Like a lot of other political pivot points, the choice of bad guy can function as a shibboleth. It separates ideological natives from untrustworthy outsiders.)
Certainly. Would you care to answer the question posed?
It is answered. Would you care to read the answer to your question prior to it even being posed? I understand you view that quote as benign, but do you feel everyone feels that way?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote