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.
This is not a court trial and what the people think will not require such strict standards of evidence. A simple cause and effect has already been observed by the people and they are disgusted by it.
So you don't have any evidence, just conjecture and wishful thinking.
Quote:
The only ones denying this are those who wish to defend their right to continue to use such vile speech. Hopefully they will be more closely monitored and as the political climate changes that they will also be sanctioned. That type of speech no longer has a place in American political discourse.
So what speech caused Loughner to post a video of the American flag being burned? Or to espouse 9/11 Trutherism? Or to disparage religion?
Charges of racism are going to pale in comparison with charges of divisiveness in this new season.
We all know who is going to be seen in a negative light.
The only course of action left is to change the dialogue and the mainstream media is doing a fine example of showing who bears the brunt of responsibility.
Wishful thinking is to believe this is actually a debate. Most know who is in the wrong here, end of story.
So you think Palin's speech was the cause of this rampage?
Any evidence for that?
I don't, however, I find it extremely interesting that La Palin herself clearly believes that speech can incite this type of behavior:
""Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.""
Of course, in the same statement she also said this:
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."
so, who knows if she really means or understands anything she says.
Excellent analysis of this latest example of lack of self-reflection here:
I don't, however, I find it extremely interesting that La Palin herself clearly believes that speech can incite this type of behavior:
""Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.""
Maybe she does believe it. Maybe she's giving back some of what she's unjustly being charge with.
Even if anyone does believe that certain rhetoric can lead to violence is no evidence that Sarah Palin is the cause of violence in this event.
Charges of racism are going to pale in comparison with charges of divisiveness in this new season.
We all know who is going to be seen in a negative light.
The only course of action left is to change the dialogue and the mainstream media is doing a fine example of showing who bears the brunt of responsibility.
Wishful thinking is to believe this is actually a debate. Most know who is in the wrong here, end of story.
Maybe she does believe it. Maybe she's giving back some of what she's unjustly being charge with.
Even if anyone does believe that certain rhetoric can lead to violence is no evidence that Sarah Palin is the cause of violence in this event.
Do you understand that it doesn't matter if anyone's violent rhetoric is the cause of violence in this event? The problem with violent rhetoric isn't that it causes or doesn't cause specific events. The problem with violent rhetoric is that it is self-sustaining, one person says something with violent overtones, then the opposite side responds in kind, the rhetoric escalates. There are a lot of mentally disturbed people out there. Sarah Palin isn't to blame for the mental disturbance, any more than Rachel Maddow is. Sarah Palin is to blame for the imagery she employs in her speeches and commentary. "Lock and load" is a reference to guns, and to using those guns. NO ONE should make such references in a political context. It's irresponsible and divisive. Our system of government depends on tension, between parties, between the branches of government, between states and the federal government. But it also depends on the people opposing one another to find common ground. Violent rhetoric and imagery prevents that common ground from being found. And sometimes violent rhetoric can lead someone who's already disturbed, already pre-disposed to violence, from acting out. It's irresponsible. The exercise of free speech, or of any freedom, should be done with the foreknowledge that you are responsible for what you say. Freedom of speech is a responsibility as well as a liberty. There must be a balance.
Sarah Palin is to blame for the imagery she employs in her speeches and commentary.
Do you have evidence that the shooter was inspired by Palin's rhetoric? Do you also think that the music of anti-flag inspired him?
Quote:
"Lock and load" is a reference to guns, and to using those guns. NO ONE should make such references in a political context.
So why does Obama get a pass? Why isn't any attention being brought down on him?
Quote:
Our system of government depends on tension, between parties, between the branches of government, between states and the federal government. But it also depends on the people opposing one another to find common ground. Violent rhetoric and imagery prevents that common ground from being found. And sometimes violent rhetoric can lead someone who's already disturbed, already pre-disposed to violence, from acting out. It's irresponsible.
Where was (and is) all this concern when the Left engages in "violent rhetoric"? Why isn't Francis Fox Piven "in the crosshair" of inquiry?
Quote:
The exercise of free speech, or of any freedom, should be done with the foreknowledge that you are responsible for what you say. Freedom of speech is a responsibility as well as a liberty. There must be a balance.
Does the same sentiments apply to music? Rap music has a lot of violent imagery and lyrics. Where's the call from high-minded progressives for hip-hop artists to cease with the violent lyrics? Where?
Do you have evidence that the shooter was inspired by Palin's rhetoric? Do you also think that the music of anti-flag inspired him?
So why does Obama get a pass? Why isn't any attention being brought down on him?
Where was (and is) all this concern when the Left engages in "violent rhetoric"? Why isn't Francis Fox Piven "in the crosshair" of inquiry?
Does the same sentiments apply to music? Rap music has a lot of violent imagery and lyrics. Where's the call from high-minded progressives for hip-hop artists to cease with the violent lyrics? Where?
The shooting in Tucson is one thing.
The violent rhetoric is a separate thing. There may be a connection, or there may not be. It doesn't matter.
No one gets a pass. Not Obama. Not liberals. Not Olberman. Not Maddow. And NOT Palin. No one gets a pass. Obama's joke, which may have been funny, should not have been made. And any other political figure or commentator who uses violent imagery in their political comments should refrain from doing so in the future, because it's irresponsible.
As for music, or the arts, it's not the same thing. Politics are ALWAYS about getting people to do something. Art can be, but generally it's about getting people to see things from other perspectives. Since politics are ALWAYS about getting people to do something, it's much more irresponsible of people involved in politics to use violent rhetoric and imagery to make their points.
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.
