Is Right-Wing Media Responsible for Right-Wing Violence?

[Member2019]

Re: Again, I totally related to Larry Craig!

Dude I'm 6'2 and I've wore slacks and suit pants in public restroom stalls (no matter how small) too and the only way on earth my hand and feet are invading the space of another stall is if I'm trying to do windmill exercises or I'm trying. I've never, ever, ever even came close to having any part of my body go from one stall to the other.

Apparently you don't travel much, because the stalls at the airports I frequently visit are half the width of others. That's because most airports were built before the accessibility requirements for the handicapped, so they reduced a lot of size for capacity. But it's hardly limited to airports.

But hey, I guess you and he are special.:1orglaugh

So what you're saying is that Craig and I are fucked up? Fine. But there are more than two of us. We're more common than you think.

I think I've proved my point that it's reality, not made up.

Siighhhh. A.) You obviously don't know what constitutes entrapment.

Did you listen to the entire tape? Not just where the officer starts with, "I'm disappointed in you, really disappointed in you ..." That comes after the 3rd time when Craig refutes the officer once again, after the officer had already "prompted/rehersed" what Craig was going to say to "get off" from the charges so they don't have to go to court.

B.) In the interest of your personal health, I would strongly suggest you leave picking up random pieces of toilette paper off of the floor of a public restrooms to the people paid to clean them. I mean sheeesh:1orglaugh

I use a clean piece of paper to do so, limiting exposure. I also use the proper "towel to turn off faucet" and "towel to open door" approach, and drop my final paper in the trash back at my desk or the next trash I come across.

You keep poking at me like I'm an idiot and fool. And yet I'm not, and your assumption that your answers are absolute and unswaying are actually showing you have no respect for people who may differ from you and your experiences. And you consider yourself an "enlightened Liberal?"

C.) I agree. You and Craig live in vastly differently worlds than the one I live in if it's commonplace for you to be touching other peoples feet, picking up random pieces of toilette paper and running your hands under the adjacent stalls in public restrooms. Nooo disagreement there.

Fine.

Lastly, the officer Mirandized Craig...If Craig doesn't know he has the right to keep his trap shut..then he doesn't deserve to be a US Congressman IMO.

Craig repeatedly refuted the charges, no less than three (3) times! However, as I said ...

Once any charges would have become public, it didn't matter if Craig was guilty or not, proven guilty or not, the public would have known of what had transpired, and made their assumptions, regardless of his innocence. Hence why Craig, after being hauled to the station, finally "gave in."

Again, there is this concept known as "privacy." People shouldn't have to explain themselves because the fact that they have to explain themselves is the problem. For all of you "enlightened liberals" that claim W. is wrong on, "if you're not guilty if there is nothing to hide," then WTF is this?!?!?!

I know in some cases the charge is a quasi conviction in the minds of some people but if I'm remotely innocent...there is no way I'm going to cop to something that...ESPECIALLY if I'm a US Congressman.

Bullshit. Congressmen, teachers, other public servants, their families lives are over!

If I had this happen to me, no matter how much I wanted to fight it as a Libertarian, do you really think I would if someone in my family was a public official? What about a teacher? Other?

That's the problem. That's the whole reason for privacy. And I invite you to read the whole fucking tape, because the officer went well beyond the privacy issue, and into pure entrapment.

Craig has been link to homosexual rumors for along time....Where there's smoke....

You just proved my point again! "Rumors." Do you even realize the type of world you're helping to build? You are going against all of those "enlightened Liberal" values.

This is what I cannot stand about hypocritical Liberals, they apply privacy and civil liberties unevenly. And they make broad claims against all Republicans that they lost their rights to them for whatever reasons -- not just politicians, but any public servant -- teachers and the like -- let alone private citizens. That's the problem.

No offense, but your responses here have more than proved my point that people like yourself are just part of the problem.

And just FYI, my name has been publicly trashed in the real world under a sexual claim that was beyond proven false and well outside reality. I used to belong to a support group that would help others that ran into the same thing -- we are not so rare! My wife's endured some serious shit for years, and there are still friends of hers who won't talk to her as a result. Luckily it was many years ago, and things eventually die out, but it did take years.

All because of people like yourself. Hell, even the officer felt like shit after all was said and done, and I forgave him for the system and society that causes the problem.

 

[Member2019]

Here are "rumors" in my real life ...

You just proved my point again! "Rumors." Do you even realize the type of world you're helping to build? You are going against all of those "enlightened Liberal" values.

I cannot stress this enough!

Here are "real life" rumors about me in my life ...

"he's gay" -- why? Because I don't talk about the "hot woman" at work. I ignore it and focus on business. I don't want to be in a lawsuit. People are shocked to find I like curves when a woman finally asks me if I'm gay (usually indirectly, often if I think they're fat or what I think of their body).

"he doesn't love his wife enough" and "he cheats on his wife" -- why? I travel away from my wife for my job, and only see her on weekends. I've done this since the '90s. I must not love her or have an "open relationship" with her or something else that "she just puts up with."

"he's religious" -- why? I don't drink. I don't confide in other women. I don't confide in people other than my wife. Etc...

Now add in the "incident" I had many years ago ... BAM! That's the "rumors" you speak of, so it must now be true!

Privacy exists for a reason. Privacy exists so you don't have to explain yourself.

Privacy is what all you bleeding heart liberals complain about W. on (and rightly so) when it comes to "if you're innocent you've got nothing to hide" and then turn around and support this bullshit in total hypocritical fashion (to my utter amazement). Why?

Political bullshit, instead of actually caring about civil liberties.

Especially for "fucked up" people like myself, especially since I don't subscribe to the common thought of the left or right.

And yet this thread is about "right wing violence" being the "right-wing media's responsibility." So we need to censor the right-wing media. Remember, you bleeding heart liberals are as "justified" as the right-wingers claim they are on everything you claim they are wrong on too. Sigh, the cycle continues.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Again, I totally related to Larry Craig!

Apparently you don't travel much, because the stalls at the airports I frequently visit are half the width of others. That's because most airports were built before the accessibility requirements for the handicapped, so they reduced a lot of size for capacity. But it's hardly limited to airports.

So what you're saying is that Craig and I are fucked up? Fine. But there are more than two of us. We're more common than you think.

I think I've proved my point that it's reality, not made up.

Did you listen to the entire tape? Not just where the officer starts with, "I'm disappointed in you, really disappointed in you ..." That comes after the 3rd time when Craig refutes the officer once again, after the officer had already "prompted/rehersed" what Craig was going to say to "get off" from the charges so they don't have to go to court.

I use a clean piece of paper to do so, limiting exposure. I also use the proper "towel to turn off faucet" and "towel to open door" approach, and drop my final paper in the trash back at my desk or the next trash I come across.

You keep poking at me like I'm an idiot and fool. And yet I'm not, and your assumption that your answers are absolute and unswaying are actually showing you have no respect for people who may differ from you and your experiences. And you consider yourself an "enlightened Liberal?"

Fine.

Craig repeatedly refuted the charges, no less than three (3) times! However, as I said ...

Once any charges would have become public, it didn't matter if Craig was guilty or not, proven guilty or not, the public would have known of what had transpired, and made their assumptions, regardless of his innocence. Hence why Craig, after being hauled to the station, finally "gave in."

Again, there is this concept known as "privacy." People shouldn't have to explain themselves because the fact that they have to explain themselves is the problem. For all of you "enlightened liberals" that claim W. is wrong on, "if you're not guilty if there is nothing to hide," then WTF is this?!?!?!

Bullshit. Congressmen, teachers, other public servants, their families lives are over!

If I had this happen to me, no matter how much I wanted to fight it as a Libertarian, do you really think I would if someone in my family was a public official? What about a teacher? Other?

That's the problem. That's the whole reason for privacy. And I invite you to read the whole fucking tape, because the officer went well beyond the privacy issue, and into pure entrapment.

You just proved my point again! "Rumors." Do you even realize the type of world you're helping to build? You are going against all of those "enlightened Liberal" values.

This is what I cannot stand about hypocritical Liberals, they apply privacy and civil liberties unevenly. And they make broad claims against all Republicans that they lost their rights to them for whatever reasons -- not just politicians, but any public servant -- teachers and the like -- let alone private citizens. That's the problem.

No offense, but your responses here have more than proved my point that people like yourself are just part of the problem.

And just FYI, my name has been publicly trashed in the real world under a sexual claim that was beyond proven false and well outside reality. I used to belong to a support group that would help others that ran into the same thing -- we are not so rare! My wife's endured some serious shit for years, and there are still friends of hers who won't talk to her as a result. Luckily it was many years ago, and things eventually die out, but it did take years.

All because of people like yourself. Hell, even the officer felt like shit after all was said and done, and I forgave him for the system and society that causes the problem.

Damn!! I gotta take off but I promise to address this when I get a chance....:1orglaugh

But I do want to say before I go, denial isn't evidence you didn't commit an offense.

Entrapment is when a LEO propositions you. This officer did no such thing for all practical purposes (not even Craig suggest he did) the officer sat there while Craig initiated all of the action.

With respect this cop and his sting...cops don't fish where the fish aren't biting..:2 cents:

 

[Philbert]

Re: Again, I totally related to Larry Craig!

So what you're saying is that Craig and I are fucked up? Fine. But there are more than two of us. We're more common than you think.

You keep poking at me like I'm an idiot and fool. And yet I'm not, and your assumption that your answers are absolute and unswaying are actually showing you have no respect for people who may differ from you and your experiences. And you consider yourself an "enlightened Liberal?"

Fine.
You just proved my point again! "Rumors." Do you even realize the type of world you're helping to build? You are going against all of those "enlightened Liberal" values.

This is what I cannot stand about hypocritical Liberals, they apply privacy and civil liberties unevenly. And they make broad claims against all Republicans that they lost their rights to them for whatever reasons -- not just politicians, but any public servant -- teachers and the like -- let alone private citizens. That's the problem.

No offense, but your responses here have more than proved my point that people like yourself are just part of the problem.

And just FYI, my name has been publicly trashed in the real world under a sexual claim that was beyond proven false and well outside reality. I used to belong to a support group that would help others that ran into the same thing -- we are not so rare! My wife's endured some serious shit for years, and there are still friends of hers who won't talk to her as a result. Luckily it was many years ago, and things eventually die out, but it did take years.

All because of people like yourself. Hell, even the officer felt like shit after all was said and done, and I forgave him for the system and society that causes the problem.

:glugglug: ....:yesyes::yesyes::yesyes:..... :glugglug:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

He also blamed Obama...sorry let me get it straight (you have to try and keep the inconsistencies of these whackos in order) he blamed the Jews for Obama. (Not sure which is the bigger transgression according to righty whack jobs).

Besides Pat Buchanan was a part of that "echo chamber" who was also a Holocaust denier too...Hmm, hmmm, hmmm:1orglaugh

And there are people on Stormfront.org who are praising Obama for "at least doing something to break the Zionist/Zog stanglehold over this country."

 

[pool_hustler]

If Muslims sit around listening to clerics telling them America is the great satan, murders Muslims, are infidels, etc. you don't think they have a share in the blame when terrorist groups and individuals act against us???

It's no different when you have the likes of Limbaugh, Michael Vollmer, etc. sitting around accusing Janet Reno and Clinton of gassing, burning and shooting to death innocent people in Waco. Then based on that misinformation and extremist rhetoric some deranged kid who learned how to make explosives out of the Turner Diaries goes and acts against a government he's being told in print and word murders innocent people and may be coming to get him.

And it's a simple fact Rush insinuated time and time again Ruby Ridge was Clinton's fault by skillfully talking about what the government did to this family and in the next breath mentioning Clinton and Reno. This a direct statement I personally heard Rush make, "since Clinton was elected in 1992 we've seen families murdered in Ruby Ridge and Waco.."

Now aside from the disputed characterization of "murdered", that is a completely true statement. It is also totally deceptive in the sense that if you didn't know better you'd understand he was assigning blame to Clinton for Ruby Ridge when Clinton while elected in '92..didn't take office until '93. Almost a year after Ruby Ridge.

Janet Reno had no role in sending the DOJs LEAs to Waco. She wasn't even AG in Feb of 1993 when the warrants were issued against David Koresh.

But did that stop the right wing "echo chamber" from claiming Reno sent jack-booted government thugs down there to execute these innocent people?? No.

Left wing conspiracy theorist exist and they have their own views on 9/11, WTO, etc. But they are the fucking extreme, out of the mainstream, relatively obscure groups largely relegated to internet blogging. Besides Michael Moore they're not regulars sitting on the panels of mainstream news channels gushing their rhetoric. Contrast that with Rush who regurgitates some of the most extremist babble around and he's apparently given more credibility than any other representative of right wing perspective today. Then Hannity who's even worse than Rush and O'Reilly calling doctors baby killers, etc. This is the mainstream of GOP.

You're damned straight they have a hand in some of this when they gin up people claiming big bad Obama is coming for their "guns"....then there's a "mysterious" up tick in firearms sales...then you have lunatics killing cops while repeating the same nonsense that Obama is coming for their "guns".

This ought to be an open and shut case.

very well said :hatsoff:

 

[hedgehogbigun]

I have never read such drivel as in this thread. The double standard by which the left lives and dies in unfuckingbelievable. Rush is responsible for right-wing terror, but a Muslim shoots two soldiers in Little Rock and NO ONE in the same media makes any assertion that our born-Muslim, pro-Muslim (or so it seems so far in his Middle East foreign affairs) President's actions may have encouraged it? Open your eyes and try to be objective, instead of reciting the rubbish the media feeds you. Open mindedness is not repeating Katie Couric's original thought of the day, its actually having one of your own.

 

[Hot Mega]

I have never read such drivel as in this thread. The double standard by which the left lives and dies in unfuckingbelievable. Rush is responsible for right-wing terror, but a Muslim shoots two soldiers in Little Rock and NO ONE in the same media makes any assertion that our born-Muslim, pro-Muslim (or so it seems so far in his Middle East foreign affairs) President's actions may have encouraged it? Open your eyes and try to be objective, instead of reciting the rubbish the media feeds you. Open mindedness is not repeating Katie Couric's original thought of the day, its actually having one of your own.

What legitimize source in this country incites Islamo-terrorists to act against America or her interests? Please give an example.

And like it or not, Islamo-extremists are theocratic fundamentilist which qualifies them as right wing extremists BTW...:wave2:

Besides, Obama is living up to his campaign promise of increasing troops in Afghanistan to crush AQ and the Taliban (finally!!!) and has also put pressure on Pakistan to kick the Taliban and AQ's ass where they are in Pakistan....sorry...in spite of what Rush tells you...the claims just don't hold up.

 

[Member2019]

And you still have not ...

What legitimize source in this country incites Islamo-terrorists to act against America or her interests?

And you still haven't given a single reason act of violence that the right-wing media is responsible for, and needs to be censored to prevent such! Nada, nothing, zip.

The only thing you've complained about has been right-wing hypocrisy, right-wing rhetoric, right-wing non-sense that people vary in disagreements on, the same as the left.

Now you've added the "to act against America or her interests" with regard to Islamo-terrorists in the US, as if that's what we're talking about under this thread's subject, which can only mean, based on this subject ...

Is Right-Wing Media Responsible for Right-Wing Violence?

That you mean that the right-wing media is responsible for violence from right-wingers more than islamo-terrorists in the US.

As far as the other non-sense, I will make one note ...

My major complaint about Obama is that he has now directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to classify people who believe in state's rights as the same as others who would take arms up against the government for various reasons that are not in the Bill of Rights. The concept of State's Rights is very much the last article of the Bill of Rights, unlike the other DHS "threat" categorizations.

I've defended Obama on many other aspects. But I'm honestly tired of people who defend Obama, and Clinton, on things while chastizing W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan for the same. The same goes for right-wingers on conservative boards, lambasting Obama and Clinton for things W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan also did.

I'm honestly tired of people who have principles that waiver based on political affiliation instead of a steadfast, hardened line that knows no variance based on who is in the White House or on Capital Hill. And people say I "sit the fence"? I take damn hard stances.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Know your history ...

That was before most of Limbaugh's "cult of personality" built itself up. Also, Limbaugh wasn't nearly as harsh on Clinton in 1992 as he would be in later years, and did praise Clinton on some items before the election while holding up the values that Reagan and others respected.

Um, well, I guess it depends on how you would define or describe "cult of personality." Limbaugh's radio show went national in the summer of '88, the term "dittohead" (surely an indicator of such a cult!) was coined in 1989:
http://www.wordspy.com/words/dittoheads.asp

He was the biggest radio talker by 1990, and was on over 600 stations by the time Clinton was elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#1990s

and if he "did praise Clinton on some items before the election while holding up the values that Reagan and others respected" - I'd just chalk that up to further evidence that Clinton wasn't NEARLY the liberal (leftist, Commie, etc.) that the right typically described him as.

In fact, when Whitewater kept dragging on into 1994, Limbaugh actually defended Clinton, saying if the Republicans were going to get any President on anything, they should within the first year of office. Why? Because it's a distraction from the President and his ability to do his job. Limbaugh actually predicted correctly that the "investigations" by Republican backers and their continuous rhetoric into Clinton would come back to haunt every administration afterwards, including Republican executives.

I'd need to see some quotes from that. I actually listened to Limbaugh quite a bit from like '90 to '93 (at least an hour or so a day) and I hardly recall this defense of Clinton. By the time Clinton was impeached, did el Rushbo continue to hold that belief (that you should "get" a prez in the first year)??? I'm doubtful! I recall Limbaugh doing a lot to perpetuate the Vince Foster "theories" and keep things stirred up about TravelGate and FileGate, etc.

Give the man some credit, back in the early '90s, he actually made some sense. I invite you to actually read things he said back then. But by the mid-'90s, he started down the road of rhetoric himself, and that's when I stopped listening to what was just more rhetoric. The later hypocrisy and other things in his life were just proof to me that he had well left his early principles.

What did Rush make sense about? I think he's actually been rather consistent in the positions he takes on various issues. Okay, so he had a drug problem and has had 3 divorces, but he still believes the same crapola now that he did then on a variety of policy matters. Of course he didn't think HE should go to jail for his drug stuff, but he still thinks other people should. Same now as he was then, as far as what he thinks and spouts off about.

It's called tackling a controversial topic. In fact, he was explaining how some people view it. He was not calling for vigilante justice, he was explaining why some people take it up.

That's dicey, I'd say. He used the "some say" tactic in an incredibly far-fetched and one-sided manner. It was all but impossible to differentiate between what O'Reilly said (and apparently thought) and what the "some say" people were...saying. He was happy to employ the Tiller the Killer line (just as Glenn Beck did the other day in an obviously faked slip of the tongue) quite frequently. Look at this (and the link has audio from his radio show, as well) - either O'Reilly is hinting around about murdering Tiller or he's very, very reckless about switching from sarcasm to sincerity (when you switch that much, that fast, it gets hard to keep track - esp. for his more dim-witted followers):

"OK. So, I'm the fascist, I'm the bad guy, I'm the problem. Not Tiller. No, he -- no, no, no. He's a good guy. Now, Tiller's pumping all kinds of money into obviously the attorney general race. He wants the guy that's gonna let him off the hook to win. Those of you listening in Kansas, you ought to know that. You know, I don't -- I'm not gonna tell you who to vote for. You guys know these guys better than I do, but I tell you what, anything Tiller wants, I'm voting the other way. And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html

More here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7192

God forbid if we start barring analysts and politicians from making controversial statements and arguing views out of "taste" instead of actually pushing "rational thought" and leaving it to the populous, we might as well give up our freedom. And you might as well start by arresting Al Gore who has been preaching "civil disobedience" on many things, from a complete case of a nut job hypocrite himself, lacking all accountability and responsibility in his own life.

I'd just be happy to see O'Reilly admit that his rhetoric encouraged this sort of act, and see him apologize. I've not seen anybody suggest that we start "barring analysts and politicians from making controversial statements and arguing views out of 'taste'."

That's what I find both humorous and sad. People want to blame and hold alleged, right wing media personalities "accountable" without looking at what the left wing media does as well. "Oh, but they don't ... blah, blah, blah." Oh, I'd love to have that debate! In fact, I have the opposite one on right leaning boards, defending the left. "Oh, but, but, but ..." (followed by, essentially, "my candidate/party").

Please, fill me in. Did Olbermann hint around about killing Dubya? Roll the tape.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: And you still have not ...

I'm honestly tired of people who defend Obama, and Clinton, on things while chastizing W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan for the same. The same goes for right-wingers on conservative boards, lambasting Obama and Clinton for things W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan also did.

I'm honestly tired of people who have principles that waiver based on political affiliation instead of a steadfast, hardened line that knows no variance based on who is in the White House or on Capital Hill. And people say I "sit the fence"? I take damn hard stances.

Honestly?

Seriously, though, credit to you where it's really due.

I too get very sick of this sort of high-school-football mentality.

Obama has really sold out on a LOT of issues since he took office, and I've seen far too many people who voted for him just letting it slide or making the lamest excuses imaginable for making it okay when Obama does it. Truly pathetic.

(btw, it's spelled Capitol Hill)

:hatsoff:

 

[Facial_King]

(Here's something else to keep in mind:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

)

 

[georges]

Re: And you still have not ...

Honestly?

Seriously, though, credit to you where it's really due.

I too get very sick of this sort of high-school-football mentality.

Obama has really sold out on a LOT of issues since he took office, and I've seen far too many people who voted for him just letting it slide or making the lamest excuses imaginable for making it okay when Obama does it. Truly pathetic.

(btw, it's spelled Capitol Hill)

:hatsoff:

You believe in the "godsaver" who just made a whole bunch of unrealistic promises and who can't fullfill them. People always take their leaders on their words and on their promises, don't worry daddy O's time will come very soon.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: And you still have not ...

And you still haven't given a single reason act of violence that the right-wing media is responsible for, and needs to be censored to prevent such! Nada, nothing, zip.

The only thing you've complained about has been right-wing hypocrisy, right-wing rhetoric, right-wing non-sense that people vary in disagreements on, the same as the left.

Now you've added the "to act against America or her interests" with regard to Islamo-terrorists in the US, as if that's what we're talking about under this thread's subject, which can only mean, based on this subject ...

Is Right-Wing Media Responsible for Right-Wing Violence?

That you mean that the right-wing media is responsible for violence from right-wingers more than islamo-terrorists in the US.

As far as the other non-sense, I will make one note ...

My major complaint about Obama is that he has now directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to classify people who believe in state's rights as the same as others who would take arms up against the government for various reasons that are not in the Bill of Rights. The concept of State's Rights is very much the last article of the Bill of Rights, unlike the other DHS "threat" categorizations.

I've defended Obama on many other aspects. But I'm honestly tired of people who defend Obama, and Clinton, on things while chastizing W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan for the same. The same goes for right-wingers on conservative boards, lambasting Obama and Clinton for things W., Bush Sr. and even Reagan also did.

I'm honestly tired of people who have principles that waiver based on political affiliation instead of a steadfast, hardened line that knows no variance based on who is in the White House or on Capital Hill. And people say I "sit the fence"? I take damn hard stances.

What are you talking about?? Again, you fail to realize that I'm responding to a question. If you have a problem with one of my responses being off topic, take it up with the person who posed the off topic question in this thread.

To the question. Since we know or are fairly certain there is no person in the right wing media who has given a direct order, orchestrated a conspiracy or provided material support to any of these individuals who have committed these acts, it's understood (or should be) the question relates to the effect or effectiveness of inflammatory statements and rhetoric in influencing some of these individuals.

Now EVERYONE KNOWS (or should know) that it is possible to influence behavior using words or images that communicate below our normal sensory perception thresholds through suggestive thought provocation or as it's commonly referred to, subliminal influence. We know that it is a real phenomena and we know that it can be more or less influential depending on the person. ESPECIALLY in cases of the mentally unstable.

The ENTIRE concept of marketing and advertising is based on it.

I don't know what you would accept as a credible case in which it's plausible to believe extremist rhetoric played some contributory role in some of these incidents. Certainly if expect some direct link by way of direction, orchestration or material support from someone in the media to one of these individuals it's doubtful something like that will be demonstrated. But I also doubt that is what the OP was trying to illicit by asking the question.

Here's excerpts from a story in April 2009;

With 14 years on the force, Kelly knew domestic calls can be the most dangerous an officer faces.

This call would underscore the sad truth.

Within minutes, all three officers were fatally shot by the subject of the domestic call, later identified as Richard "Pop" Poplawski, 22. A dishonorably charged Marine, he adhered to a number of right-wing conspiracy theories and expressed fears of a "Zionist nation" revoking his right to own guns.

Police said he had also spent the night drinking.

Police said Poplawski knew his mother had called 911. He apparently lay in wait for them, armed with an AK-47 assault-style rifle, a .22-caliber rifle, and a revolver. He was also wearing a bulletproof vest.

Poplawski shot Sciullo in the head when the officer reached the doorway, Police Chief Nate Harper said. He shot Mayhle, who was right behind Sciullo, in the head as well, Harper said.

Kelly was shot just after pulling up to the scene. Gravely wounded, he used his radio to report that officers were down. Other officers succeeded in getting Kelly out of the line of fire, but he later died.

Here are some statements from leading right wing voices previous to the above incident;

Lars Larson

"it's likely to during his administration, we're going to end up with justices who think they can break free of the constraints of the Constitution -- perhaps on the Second Amendment, one of my favorites." Larson later read a letter from a listener stating, "Lars, I've always said that if the gun-grabbers come to my front door and demand my guns due to some unconstitutional law being passed by the loony lefties in Washington, D.C., I'll have no choice but to hand them over. However, they will receive all of my ammunition first, all of it, just as fast as I can possibly give it to them."

Ann Coulter
"

..By the way, the NRA also has information on how they [the Obama administration] are going to be expanding the concept of national parks to include, you know, highways running from Rhode Island to Virginia. National parks have gun bans imposed throughout." She then stated of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "This bill is so much worse than earmarks and pork. This is a total government takeover, and Big Brother coming in and taking our guns and schools and doctors." Host Sean Hannity responded, in part: "All right. Let me -- Pat, let's -- lest those out there on the left think Ann Coulter is paranoid -- let's look at this...."

(Never mind the fact that the "Lib" Senate JUST voted to allow firearms in our national parks. Upholding a Bush policy. But again, let's never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.)

Those are just a couple of examples (from many) of the type of shrill rhetoric that can in some cases ignite the impetus to action in some unstable people.

We know we enjoy a right to free speech and as with many other rights we enjoy we know such rights if abused or irresponsibly exercised can and will lead to serious consequences.

The question is, can our mainstream media voices discuss issues, argue opposition and express dissent without echoing the same shrill, inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric used by extremists when doing so effectively legitimizes these extremists??

If it's the case that these people actually believe as they state and they ARE representative of those extremist views...the question now becomes how are they mainstream in the GOP??

 

[Facial_King]

Here's an interesting study that looks into what extent O'Reilly is utilizing propaganda techniques:

http://journalism.indiana.edu/news/oreilly-study-generates-national-attention/

 

[Hot Mega]

Here's an interesting study that looks into what extent O'Reilly is utilizing propaganda techniques:

http://journalism.indiana.edu/news/oreilly-study-generates-national-attention/

I just gave a perfect example of a typical Rush technique where he fashions a true statement which is ultimately designed to mislead.

Hannity the same thing when he stated Obama was "required to authorized" military interevention in the pirate standoff. Suggesting it was an inevitability Obama had no discretion with when in fact the context of the phrase means the military could not act in that particular situation without him authorizing them to do so.

This stuff happens so much that it can't simply be attributed to coincidence. It's pretty clear using facts to rearrange truth is a standard MO for these characters.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: And you still have not ...

You believe in the "godsaver" who just made a whole bunch of unrealistic promises and who can't fullfill them. People always take their leaders on their words and on their promises, don't worry daddy O's time will come very soon.

I don't know what your deal is. Clearly my comment - which you quoted - was to say that I don't "believe in" Obama (whom you call the "godsaver" for whatever reason) in any way, quasi-religious or otherwise.

Of course, to vote for someone you must believe, to some extent, that they will do things remotely close to what they're talking about in the campaign. To have absolute skepticism about everything they say is just cynical to an unhelpful degree, leaving us all with the only option of throwing our hands in the air and saying "It doesn't matter who we vote for!"

As disappointing as I've found Obama thus far, it hasn't sunk to the depths where I wished I would have voted for Palin and the old geezer.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: And you still have not ...

As disappointing as I've found Obama thus far, it hasn't sunk to the depths where I wished I would have voted for Palin and the old geezer.

You must also keep in mind an overwhelming part of Obama's appeal was pragmatism over ideology. I believe that's why so many voted for him who were not aligned with their perception of his ideology.

I don't agree with everything he's done or supported. But as long as he's living up to not just the letter but the spirit of his consitutional duties and limits..which so far he has been, I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to deliver results and even fulfill campaign promises. Which he's done or is doing most of them already.

 

[Member2019]

Here's an interesting study that looks into what extent O'Reilly is utilizing propaganda techniques:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/news/oreilly-study-generates-national-attention/

Right-wing media is very in-your-face sensationalism with name calling. It's direct. It's the one thing I don't like about it and the main reason I don't watch it.

At the same time, if you watch any of the big three US media networks, they will present the news with analysis as well, and "here's why we're right and you're wrong" in a "nice way" that is beyond insulting to my intelligence. Bleeding heart guilt, that is wholly unjustified, is why I can't watch the mainstream media either.

I'd much rather have Bill O'Reilly telling me is overbearing opinion straight up than what Dan Rather did night after night, because at least I know O'Reilly admits he's purposely being offensive and direct. I like direct people, because I know exactly where they stand. Anyone who has to act like "oh, what I'm telling you is common sense, and if you disagree, you're wrong" should really consider what they are saying about themselves in their delivery.

(Here's something else to keep in mind:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

Doesn't surprise me one bit that some people like to take it that far. But that goes for anything.

This is what I cannot understand. Every time someone quotes a right-wing media personality after they've committed a crime, the left media makes a huge hoopla about it. But if someone on the left does it, "oh, they were justified because they were a victim of the right."

Virtually all right-wing media personalities warn against the irresponsibility of "fighting the system" with violence and other, illegal acts. Yet left-wing leaders, like Al Gore, have publicly gone on record recommending acts of civil disobedience that are illegal, and they are ignored or -- worse yet -- considered "justified."

Lastly, I'm honestly tired of any and all NRA members being consider "possible violent offenders." I'm seeing that over and over and over on this board. I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, EFF and NRA. I don't own a gun. I don't even drink. I'm a conservationalist and know many hunters who are the same. Yet were all irresponsible idiots who are capable of violence?

Again, this thread has repeatedly proved to me that all the leftist are capable of his rhetoric and claim that the right wing media is responsible for violence and must be censored. "Books were found in his car." I honestly love that, because it goes against the very principles of free exchange of opinions and ideals.

"But, but ... they're wrong! They incite violence! They must be stopped! They are preaching racism and going against civil liberties!"

Stretch after stretch after stretch. So far all the left has shown me is that they are more than willing to revoke civil liberties from others in the name of allegedly protecting civil liberties. It's rather sickening.

I'm reminded of many parts of the Jeffersonian era in this very, self-inflicting non-sense.

I don't agree with everything he's done or supported. But as long as he's living up to not just the letter but the spirit of his consitutional duties and limits..which so far he has been, I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to deliver results and even fulfill campaign promises.

What planet do you live on?

I predicted all of what he would do, in utter contrast to his campaign promises. He said he would do things he knew he could not, and did not. He made excuses later for not doing such which I predicted he would not do. I wasn't the only one. I was berated for pointing out this obvious, even labelled a Republican, someone who was going to vote for McCain, etc..., "not being fair" to Obama, etc... I'm beyond "I told you so" at this point, which was way back in February.

He has only continued virtually all of the policies of W., only playing with some installations and other, "politically correct" moves, which have no effect on what people were actually complaining about -- especially Libertarians like myself. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. That's the problem. That's always been the problem, left or right. That's what drives me bonkers about the left, making excuses for Obama continuing the exact same policies as W., but saying, "oh, well he's within his Constitutional rights and what rights Congress gave him."

Excuse me? Isn't that what the Republicans said of W.?

Again, the one thing that scares me to death about Obama was the leaked DHS change on classification of people who believe state's rights trump federal by default. I really disliked W. for what he did, and even some Executive Orders by Clinton near the end of his term that W. used before the passage of the Patriot Act (which gave Legislational approval, which I also criticized at that time). Obama hasn't changed those, and now added this nugget.

Again, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The wire taps continue. The tribunals continue. Everything is stay-the-course. The only thing that changes is every 4-8 years, the excuse machines flip parties. Until people actually "take a stand" and don't excuse based on their blind party alignment, the Democrats and Republicans will just up-the-ante in the fight on our civil liberties every 4-8 years.

Because they can always find at least half of the country that will excuse what they do, regardless of party.

 

[Hot Mega]

What planet do you live on?

I predicted all of what he would do, in utter contrast to his campaign promises. He said he would do things he knew he could not, and did not. He made excuses later for not doing such which I predicted he would not do. I wasn't the only one. I was berated for pointing out this obvious, even labelled a Republican, someone who was going to vote for McCain, etc..., "not being fair" to Obama, etc... I'm beyond "I told you so" at this point, which was way back in February.

He has only continued virtually all of the policies of W., only playing with some installations and other, "politically correct" moves, which have no effect on what people were actually complaining about -- especially Libertarians like myself. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. That's the problem. That's always been the problem, left or right. That's what drives me bonkers about the left, making excuses for Obama continuing the exact same policies as W., but saying, "oh, well he's within his Constitutional rights and what rights Congress gave him."

Excuse me? Isn't that what the Republicans said of W.?

Again, the one thing that scares me to death about Obama was the leaked DHS change on classification of people who believe state's rights trump federal by default. I really disliked W. for what he did, and even some Executive Orders by Clinton near the end of his term that W. used before the passage of the Patriot Act (which gave Legislational approval, which I also criticized at that time). Obama hasn't changed those, and now added this nugget.

Again, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The wire taps continue. The tribunals continue. Everything is stay-the-course. The only thing that changes is every 4-8 years, the excuse machines flip parties. Until people actually "take a stand" and don't excuse based on their blind party alignment, the Democrats and Republicans will just up-the-ante in the fight on our civil liberties every 4-8 years.

Because they can always find at least half of the country that will excuse what they do, regardless of party.

Ok, I'll play along. What did you hear Obama promise on the campaign trail? Then we'll compare it to what he's done or is doing so far.

You prattled off a bunch of I-told-you-sos but not one thing specific. Keep in mind we're talking about what he said he would do, not what you and others think he should be doing.

Ready? Go!