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.
O'Reilly's toxic bleatings are no different than those hand-wringers of the 1950's who said that Elvis and other musicians were 'corrupting' our kids and had to be stopped.
The mouthpieces of the far right are toxic, poisoning the country. Their toxic hatefulness is now being acted out by those too weak to control themselves. I hope O'Reilly is happy with his latest 'achievement' for the wingnut fascists.
I listen to O'Reilly's radio show every afternoon. I'd say you've never heard his radio show. I bet most of the people on this board tote the same line even if they've never heard the show. What's next? O'Reilly gets talking points from the White House?
Here's the thing that confuses me. People seem to think that neo cons and conservatives are the same thing. They are not. I was raised by conservatives and I know the difference. Conservatives believe in the rule of law and preserving the Constitution. Conservatives believe in government staying out of the private lives of the citizens as much as possible. Conservatives are against intervening in other countries and are certainly against invading other countries when our own country is not endangered. Neo cons do not believe in any of these things. They are shredding our constitution, ignoring our laws, imposing themselves on the private lives of the citizens, and invading other countries for purely monetary reasons. I think that the neo cons taking control of the GOP has hurt the conservative cause and younger people don't seem to even realize there is a difference between the two.
That may be the case but, if so, why didn't he shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic? Why would he go after a church (he, being a conservative, was supposedly a Christian so wouldn't that go against his angrily-clung-to-religion?).
If his tirade was against liberals and he is indeed sane, aren't there places where it'd have been easier to tear up the joint?
A starbucks perhaps? A NOW rally?
I disagree with you; he's nuts.
Are you saying that to be Conservative you must be Christian or religous? I would have to think that fiscal conservatives definitely would not have to be religous. Maybe he chose a Church because it filled with people and they were easy to get. Maybe he thought the people at that church had pulled out in front of him, one time too many on a Sunday morning. Who knows why people kill, but to assume they are nuts because they killed people in a church is nonsensicle. I did not hear people giving the kids who thought out the Columbine massacre a pass for being crazy. Just accept he was a cold blooded murderer who chose to kill people while they attended a social event at a church.
...Maybe he thought the people at that church had pulled out in front of him, one time too many on a Sunday morning. Who knows why people kill, but to assume they are nuts because they killed people in a church is nonsensicle. I did not hear people giving the kids who thought out the Columbine massacre a pass for being crazy. Just accept he was a cold blooded murderer who chose to kill people while they attended a social event at a church.
Exactly. Who knows? Maybe he is just a sane, cold-blooded murderer who kills for the pleasure of it (but he's still sane).
But to use "Conservative" as the primary description of this individual is a lame attempt at stereotyping conservatives as violent people.
Again, I say, anyone who isn't able to differentiate between a command and sarcasm, in a situation where the command would have to be "go kill some liberals", is nuts.
And if they think it is indeed a command and they still don't say "screw him, I'm not killing anybody", they're DOUBLE nuts.
Exactly. Who knows? Maybe he is just a sane, cold-blooded murderer who kills for the pleasure of it (but he's still sane).
But to use "Conservative" as the primary description of this individual is a lame attempt at stereotyping conservatives as violent people.
Again, I say, anyone who isn't able to differentiate between a command and sarcasm, in a situation where the command would have to be "go kill some liberals", is nuts.
And if they think it is indeed a command and they still don't say "screw him, I'm not killing anybody", they're DOUBLE nuts.
I never said he was a conservative, I said he was a cold blooded killer who thought killing liberals was a good idea. Labels are pointless.
However, since we spend billions of dollars trying to influence each other with written, spoken, visual, and musical advertisements, it is also not completely true that propaganda in any form can be affective and may affect some in more radical ways than others. Advertisements and propaganda affect behavior. 20 years ago, you brushed your teeth and had no cavities and were thrilled with normal teeth, today lots of people spend millions on getting their teeth artificially whitened because the advertisers told them they needed to. Men used to put massive amounts of Brylcream on their hair until ads told them to use dry hair spray. Did Joe wake up and decide independently after years of slicking his hair back, to suddenly have a dry look? I am just saying.
So when someone says something like this (from the "Speculators Buying Up Food" thread):
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Ain't Capitalism Wonderful? Although this has very little to do with capitalism and more to do with monopoly. These greedheads should be shipped to GITMO for a little time out to contemplate the fortunes they will have lost. Box cutters will be provided.
How should that be handled? Is it advertising? Will it prompt someone to package up some stockbroker and ship him off to Cuba?
If so, is Greg as bad as Limbaugh?
or, are these kind of sarcastic remarks made by everyone, everywhere and shouldn't be blamed for some lunatic taking his words literally?
Last edited by bbkaren; 07-30-2008 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: Had the other thread title wrong
So when someone says something like this (from the "Government Hoarding Food" thread):
How should that be handled? Is it advertising? Will it prompt someone to package up some stockbroker and ship him off to Cuba?
If so, is Greg as bad as Limbaugh?
or, are these kind of sarcastic remarks made by everyone, everywhere and shouldn't be blamed for some lunatic taking his words literally?
BB,
Perhaps you are missing sarcasm in my posts. I personally think child molesters, most killers, and serial rapist are all lunatics, but our society judges them as sane, just choosing to act that way. This man is in the same situation, he decided using his addled brain, that killing a bunch of churchgoers was a good or necessary thing to do, no matter the consequences. The same can be said for most criminal minds. However, as you took my words seriously, why would one think that an angry man sitting in his house, being told day after day, that liberals are plotting to take away his money, his American dream, will plunge us into the next depression, hate America, etc would not be capable of violent acts? So let's just say that we each have an impact everyday on our environment and sometimes there can be derivative results. jThis applies to all types of negative discourse.
my point was when people talk about a seriously deranged white person they associate it with their mental stability and not what may have influenced it because it does not fall in line in what you think...
So when someone says something like this (from the "Government Hoarding Food" thread):
How should that be handled? Is it advertising? Will it prompt someone to package up some stockbroker and ship him off to Cuba?
If so, is Greg as bad as Limbaugh?
or, are these kind of sarcastic remarks made by everyone, everywhere and shouldn't be blamed for some lunatic taking his words literally?
Or let's try it another way.
If religous leader X tells her flock that all people in Country X hate them and wish them dead and must be stopped. When personY decides to take matters into their own hands and martyr themselves, taking countrymen from countryX with them, does that religous leader have any responsibility for the state of mind of the follower?
If political leader R tells his people that all people in Country X hate them and wish them dead and must be stopped. When personY decides to take matters into their own hands and do his patriotic duty to save his fellow citizens, by ensuring the countrymen from countryX are no longer a threat, does that political leader have any responsibility for the state of mind of the citizenry?
I think there is derivative responsibility.
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.
