Perhaps the point is that a lot of the political talk is crazy these days, to the point of preferring votes over actually getting useful stuff done, and that maybe it’s time to rethink that.
For example, I see no substantive reason why Sarah “I Rage Quit IRL” Palin would be any sort of quality candidate for anything.
You can talk in circles about “equivalency” or “lone nutter” or more honestly “lone nutter - again” - but maybe there’s some pretty fucking valid conversations to be had. And perhaps one particular conversation is “hey although this person says exciting and inflammatory things, what real content is there?”
America has more people than the UK so of course there will be more deaths. However take a look at the Swiss, they are the most armed nation on the planet and have virtually no gun crime.
Americas gun problems come from cultural issues in many urban groups, poor social safety nets, not having a homogenious society, and economic issues. All of these issues cause problems.
What you mentioned is part of what’s really bothering. Neal Bortz was on the radio this morning talking about how he had to bunker up and prepare because now there’s gonna be an all out war on talk radio. Which is bullshit.
This rhetoric isn’t just for things like “Second amendment solutions.” Just like Preppy posted, there are tons of people out there who think answers to complex problems are as simple as “Cut out the waste!” and don’t give it a further though. Then politicians can run on these same platforms, change nothing, and fuck the country up even more. I’ll never forget when John Boehner was asked what programs he would cut, and he couldn’t think of any. Yet this same guy ran on the platform that was about cutting waste and spending. Hell, his whole Contract with America or whatever it’s called isn’t even possible, and they know it.
Check this out.
I’ve seen stuff on Fox when i was at the news that said TARP and the auto bailout didn’t even START until Obama came in office, which is not true.
The leader of the St. Louis Tea Party went on Bill Maher and said that the bailout cost more than the Iraq war, was shut down by three different people and continued to say that they were wrong. THat’s the worst kind of rhetoric; knowing you’re wrong but talking anyway because there’s somebody out there who’s stupid enough to believe you. And that’s what people like Rush and Beck make their money off of.
Anybody that acts like the type of environment people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh create doesn’t help foster incidents like this are lying to themselves or are simply too fucking stupid and shouldn’t talk. The rhetoric in this country has hit a point that’s unprecedented and nobody in is willing to be grown and actually say “You know what, this isn’t okay. We’ve fed into it, and we’re gonna tone it down”. They’re not going to either because it might lighten their pockets. Total bullshit.
I really doubt the rhetoric caused this. If it did, then video games and violent movies/music also have caused severe violence as well, Marilyn Manson and Doom were responsible for Columbine right?
i would argue that political rhetoric has more to do with an attempted political assassination than random music/games had to do with those kids going on a shooting spree. the columbine kids had no clear targets other than to just inflict damage on as many people as they could, this guy knew he who wanted to kill…
Meh, I think that isn’t a good parallel to draw. For one, video games are fictional. Real life issues are real life, and someone telling you in a sensationalist way that your way of life is on the brink of collapse by demonizing those in charge has more of a dramatic effect. If you’re frustrated with the way your life is and angry with the government, those spoken words have an even sharper effect. As was posted, if certain people hear something enough times they will believe it. Especially to someone who is crazy.
Don’t think the rhetoric was a catalyst in this? Take a moment to think how many people in this country still think Obama was not born on US soil or that he’s a muslim.
The main difference being that the republicans, due their innate love of guns, could probably actually hit what they aim for/intend to murder, whereas the democracts would be more likely to either accidentally pop a nine year old, or themselves in the foot?
As previously mentioned, this tragedy was the result of more then one influence on a disturbed and susceptible individual. No one cause should be assigned the blame, but that’s what humans do. Without a doubt political rhetoric had some part in this, look at the target. Of course there has to be more to this, I mean how many of us know this type, the random dude at the bar pulling out a dollar bill and showing you all the hidden imagerary and meanings, calling everyone sheep for living their life in the confines defined by the government. I have met too many. I hope events like this are preventable, but it will be combination of reform that helps reach these people. I am more worried that as a nation are we capable of doing thing any differently then its been done for past 2000 years or so. Haven’t we seen this type of behavior since before the Romans. I don’t mean to sound defeatist, I believe we can change but more of us have to step up the right way and make it happen.
What is wrong with this picture? One, his finger is on the trigger when he is not aiming at something, this is a huge no-no. Second, his thumb is on the back of the slide so if he actually shot the gun his thumb would be blown off his hand. He could go for the trifecta and hold it sideways to make it as bad as possible though.
Aren’t ratings found upon video games and violent movies/music? :tup:
Maybe that’s an excellent point and we should stop using gun targeting metaphors for political signage.
But it is fair to note that one is clearly a gunsight and one is a standard non-gun target as found in dunk tanks and a variety of other non-paramilitary usage.
BUT THEY DID IT TOO has always been a stupid (non-)defense.
as i said before, clearly as evidenced by his altercation with her in 2007, the guy had a problem with her before the rhetoric. however that doesn’t really mean that the rhetoric has 0 to do with him deciding to take the action that he did take.
Both bullseyes and crosshairs can be gun sights. However you shoot at a bullseye, never at a crosshair (unless that’s some through the scope hollywood bullshit).
At the end of the day it’s the same thing. That doesn’t make either right, nor is it a defense. it just points out violent imagery comes from the left as well. So if they want to complain about it, either deal with it or accept that it makes them pure hypocrites.
I know how they can deal with it! They can have Rahm send everybody who puts up a bad image a dead fish, they drive a knife into the table and yell “dead”. Because of course, it’s OK and nobody will assume you mean anything bad by it as long as you are a Democrat. (and yes he did that to political rivals of the Clintons).
