Sheriff Dupnik's criticism of political 'vitriol' resonates with public

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FromTheAshes777 said:
That would be because no one except those on the left (who just took some heavy losses in the last election) is talking about political rhetoric causing this. The evidence supports that this young man was influenced to do what he did by a severely disturbed mind combined with the influence of anarchist conspiracy theorists and communist revolutionaries. Oh yeah, and Mr. Adolph Hitler as well.

What Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck have in common with any of the above is far beyond me. It is childish and silly to compare them with what really did influence the shooter.

The current political rhetoric had about as much to do with this tragedy as heavy metal music had to do with the Columbine shootings. This young man was disturbed and had been for a long time. He hated the likes of both parties and thought all government officials were corrupt and evil. Neither party is to blame for this tragedy. The psycho-path with the weapon is to blame, and he will recieve justice for his crimes.

Please stop building political pulpits on top of the suffering and deaths of innocent people. It is shameful and sad.

I commend President O’Bama for his leadership thus far in regards to the tragedy. He realizes, as most of America does, that this horrible tragedy goes far above and beyond any political ideology. When people are murdered it’s not about politics, it’s about humanity.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in your post which attempts to respond to the points I’ve made but I have listened to all three of the figures you mention use fear and divisive rhetoric (both openly and subtly) to energize people. This contributes to an atmosphere permissive to or accepting of violence as a means of solving problems. Did it contribute to the recent shooting? Maybe not. Does it need to be addressed? Certainly. Some on the right are ashamed of it but they’re too afraid of the loudest among them, to speak up. I heard hatred too when Bush was in office, I got the emails that made me cringe. The difference I see is the tail (fringe) wagging the dog, who seems to have lost it’s barking power (or maybe he’s content to let the tail do its thing).
 
seekerz said:
I see nothing in your post which attempts to respond to the points I’ve made but I have listened to all three of the figures you mention use fear and divisive rhetoric (both openly and subtly) to energize people. This contributes to an atmosphere permissive to or accepting of violence as a means of solving problems. Did it contribute to the recent shooting? Maybe not. Does it need to be addressed? Certainly. Some on the right are ashamed of it but they’re too afraid of the loudest among them, to speak up. I heard hatred too when Bush was in office, I got the emails that made me cringe. The difference I see is the tail (fringe) wagging the dog, who seems to have lost it’s barking power (or maybe he’s content to let the tail do its thing).
Click to expand...
So how do you suggest this alleged explosive rhetoric be addressed? Personally i dont think there is a problem. I prefer robust debate and devisive rhetoric as i want it made crytal clear just exaclty what it is we disagree with the Left on.
 
estesbob said:
So how do you suggest this alleged explosive rhetoric be addressed? Personally i dont think there is a problem. I prefer robust debate and devisive rhetoric as i want it made crytal clear just exaclty what it is we disagree with the Left on.
Click to expand...
The right should simply be quiet and not talk - that was BHO’s suggestion: “the people who caused the mess should not be doing a lot of talkin’”.

When the right does talk it is always violent, because they use code words, such as “tax cut”, which really means “take away grandma’s social security and beat her with a spoon”.
 
JHow said:
The right should simply be quiet and not talk - that was BHO’s suggestion: “the people who caused the mess should not be doing a lot of talkin’”.

When the right does talk it is always violent, because they use code words, such as “tax cut”, which really means “take away grandma’s social security and beat her with a spoon”.
Click to expand...
:D:thumbsup:
 
JHow said:
The right should simply be quiet and not talk - that was BHO’s suggestion: “the people who caused the mess should not be doing a lot of talkin’”.

When the right does talk it is always violent, because they use code words, such as “tax cut”, which really means “take away grandma’s social security and beat her with a spoon”.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:

You’re new here, but you catch on quick. :cool:
 
JHow said:
…that was BHO’s suggestion: “the people who caused the mess should not be doing a lot of talkin’”.
Click to expand...
Then why do we keep hearing the voices of Geithner and Bernanke? That suggestion doesn’t seem to fly. Sorry for the digression…
 
seekerz said:
I see nothing in your post which attempts to respond to the points I’ve made but I have listened to all three of the figures you mention use fear and divisive rhetoric (both openly and subtly) to energize people. This contributes to an atmosphere permissive to or accepting of violence as a means of solving problems. Did it contribute to the recent shooting? Maybe not. Does it need to be addressed? Certainly. Some on the right are ashamed of it but they’re too afraid of the loudest among them, to speak up. I heard hatred too when Bush was in office, I got the emails that made me cringe. The difference I see is the tail (fringe) wagging the dog, who seems to have lost it’s barking power (or maybe he’s content to let the tail do its thing).
Click to expand...
Have you ever studied the history of politics in our country? Political rhetoric in the last 10 or 20 years is actually much less “violent”, “fearful”, and “divisive” than in the past, mainly due to a political correctness gospel. If you say something that upsets a lot of people normally you get fired from your job and crucified by the media, regardless if you have a point or a fact to back yourself up. Our founding Fathers used incredibly “divisive” and “violent” rhetoric during the course of political debate. Debate in our system should be rigorous and passionate. It is the way our Republic has always functioned.

I could understand what liberals are trying say here if there were some tiny shred of evidence that the shooter was influenced by conservative thinkers or by any American politician of any political stripe for that matter… but the reality is, is that there is NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. There is only an attempt being made to silence those they disagree with. The shooter’s influences are coming out in the evidence found by investigators and it paints a pretty clear explanation for why Loughner was motivated to committ this heinous crime. He is a psychopath, influenced by historical political figures who committed mass murder, advocated lots of violence to get their way, was intensely paranoid about government conspiracy, and was most likely mentally ill. Some are speculating paranoid schizophrenia given the descriptions of his behavior.

All politicians and political commentators do and say things that are somewhat questionable. That’s the nature of our political system. Do I always like it? No, of course not. I don’t like it when anyone says violence needs to be committed against a president or other government official, and it has been done by people of ALL political stripes and it is wrong.

As I said before, there is zero evidence that this young man was influenced by current political rhetoric, in fact he came to a public event held by Rep. Giffords and was acting deranged as early as 2007 per the testimony of her staff.

This was BEFORE the Tea Party even existed, and no one outside of Alaska even knew who Sarah Palin was.

The reality of this situation is that those on the left, Paul Krugman being the worst of them in my opinion, are basing their opinions on insanely prejudiced speculation and have ZERO facts to back up what they are contending. Those on the right are merely defending themselves and joining our President in mourning a national tragedy, and refraining from making it a political issue.

As I said before, I applaud the President for how he has handled things so far, and I hope he continues to show good leadership in regards to this terrible crime.
 
I find it interesting that liberals aren’t out in the streets beating themselves up when someone pulls a gun out and starts shooting after he paints a V with a circle around it.

A clear connection to a Hollywood movie, start condemning yourselves libs.

I’d almost be willing to bet that liberal “art” can be connected with more violent crimes than anything conservatives have ever done…
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I find it interesting that liberals aren’t out in the streets beating themselves up when someone pulls a gun out and starts shooting after he paints a V with a circle around it.

A clear connection to a Hollywood movie, start condemning yourselves libs.

I’d almost be willing to bet that liberal “art” can be connected with more violent crimes than anything conservatives have ever done…
Click to expand...
I also find it interesting that conservative commentators and politicians didn’t start lambasting the other side of the aisle, and contending that anyone who isn’t a conservative was responsible for the incident, as we have seen liberals doing to conservatives in regards to the AZ shooter.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I find it interesting that liberals aren’t out in the streets beating themselves up when someone pulls a gun out and starts shooting after he paints a V with a circle around it.

A clear connection to a Hollywood movie, start condemning yourselves libs.

I’d almost be willing to bet that liberal “art” can be connected with more violent crimes than anything conservatives have ever done…
Click to expand...
Actually, V was more of a treatise on revolutionary libertarianism than American liberalism.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Actually, V was more of a treatise on revolutionary libertarianism than American liberalism.
Click to expand...
Yep, I know it’s one of my favorite movies.

But liberals won’t condemn it or Hollywood, or themselves because it’s art.

I’m not sure what the Wachowski brothers believe politically.

But liberals would never seek to restrict art, it might have some negative impacts on their own forms of art.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Actually, V was more of a treatise on revolutionary libertarianism than American liberalism.
Click to expand...
I would contend that the graphic novel was about anarchy vs. fascism

where as the movie (to the chagrin of Alan Moore the author of the graphic novel) was,

“a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… It’s a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England”

the creator’s own words

but anyways…chasing a rabbit a little bit there.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
But liberals would never seek to restrict art, it might have some negative impacts on their own forms of art.
Click to expand...
I can’t see conservatives being censors and restricting art either. One can appreciate art regardless of one’s political position.
 
what it all comes down to is restricting free speech

freedom of speech applies to speech even that you don’t like or agree with

currently liberals are trying to figure out a way to restrict the free speech that they don’t like by labeling it as “violent”, “divisive”, “irresponsible”, and then linking it to this tragedy.

Sheriff Dupnik and Paul Krugman ignited this firestorm and it hasn’t stopped.

It’s very sad and very discouraging to think that free speech may take a big hit if we have something passed like the “fairness” doctrine, which is an all out assault on the first ammendment.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
what it all comes down to is restricting free speech

freedom of speech applies to speech even that you don’t like or agree with

currently liberals are trying to figure out a way to restrict the free speech that they don’t like by labeling it as “violent”, “divisive”, “irresponsible”, and then linking it to this tragedy.

Sheriff Dupnik and Paul Krugman ignited this firestorm and it hasn’t stopped.

It’s very sad and very discouraging to think that free speech may take a big hit if we have something passed like the “fairness” doctrine, which is an all out assault on the first ammendment.
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest, this whole move by democrats is really scaring me. Freedom of speech is vital to a free country. I just…I’m honestly scared.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I can’t see conservatives being censors and restricting art either. One can appreciate art regardless of one’s political position.
Click to expand...
As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I would not want to restrict it at all. Nor would I be shallow enough to condemn someones speech that had nothing to do with a insane violent crime to try and score a political point or pass some stupid bill that everyone knows is unconstitutional. It’s about as crooked as it can get, and the liberals wreak of a shallowness and ignorance after this incident.

Not that it matters, but I starting to have a bit of respect for liberals. And it’s not the fact that certain idiotic media mouths said anything, its the fact that those who I tend to respect came on this forum and defended it all.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
what it all comes down to is restricting free speech

freedom of speech applies to speech even that you don’t like or agree with

currently liberals are trying to figure out a way to restrict the free speech that they don’t like by labeling it as “violent”, “divisive”, “irresponsible”, and then linking it to this tragedy.
Click to expand...
Not all liberals. This is one liberal who believes in the classic liberal tradition that NO speech is to be restricted - political, religious, sexual, inflammatory, or otherwise. I believe that the 1st Amendment is what makes America so strong - the right to say anything without fear of any censorship or prior restraint. As much as I dislike that Westboro group, I accept their right of free speech; as much as I think pornography vulgar and demeaning to women, I’d not censor any of it (child pornography excepted). And, I think that pundits of both sides, even those I dislike, deserve to be heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top