Regardless of the political leanings of Loughner, who is probably psychotic, virtually all of the commentators that incited him were of the right wing - the Palins, Paladinos, Cantors, Mitchells, Limbaughs,O'Reilly's, Bachmanns, Becks, Robertsons, Grahams etc etc.  It goes on and on and on. There is nothing comparable to this amount of irresponsible, lockstep and reckless inciting of violence on the left.

Views: 125

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do you believe these people were harmless? Do you know for a fact that their intention was harmless? Does the name William Ayers ring a bell?

Yes, I am familiar with Ayers.  Sure, lets associate "liberals" in the media with a revolutionary group bent on overthrowing the government 40 years ago. that makes perfect sense.


I would assume that their intents were harmless seeing that they did these things with NO weapons or explosives~ unless they were planning on harming someone with plastic bags.  try again.

Jim David Adkisson, the poster boy of those who perceive danger in conservative media. He had books by Hannity and O'Reilly in his home (he probably had some dangerous cookbooks, too). Conservative authors top the bestseller lists repeatedly. Rightie talkers lead the ratings. They all reach multi-millions of people across the country daily. I'm no statistician, but that would make Adkisson one consumer in untold millions.


If conservative media was so dangerous, then reason says we should see thousands of Adkissons on the loose. Yet, curiously, we don't.

You know what, there is no point trying to show you these counterpoints~ I might as well be arguing atheism with a mormon.

You have been presented clear evidence, in the form of QUOTES from Adkisson that mirror the extreme right ideology verbatim.  He was an avid follower of those same conservative hosts AND he committed his crime BECAUSE of that belief.  

~If you are unwilling to acknowledge that there is at least ONE instance where an ultraconservative killed people BECAUSE of his extreme right wing ideology, the same ideology parroted by the people he idolized, then there is no discussion actually occurring.

~these are all baseless defenses against evidence for my claim, and you have yet to present any REAL evidence for yours.  I'd really like to discuss this topic, but its becoming increasingly difficult when only one side is communicating honestly.

One nut, in a vaaaaaaasaaaaasssssssst sea of people, who decided to perpetrate murder. You're hanging your hat on that?


Obviously we aren't gonna agree. It's just a pissin' match.

Its one nut this time that actually goes through with it.  Its a bunch of nuts on Tv that talk about doing it.  Its millions of nuts watching them on Tv nodding their heads in unison.  This isn't a statement about your political views (some of which I hold myself) as it is the culture that is representing those views in the national media.  Its a treatise on the extreme lengths that people are going to to garner support of their view.  Its on thing to say that you disagree with someone's policies~ its completely different to say that they are destroying a nation, trying to kill the elderly (death panels) and in favor of instating a communist government.  I, perhaps naively, assumed that you would be, in some sense, reasonable in this discussion; it, however, does not seem like that assumption would be correct.


I am not a member of the "left" nor do I advocate their policies unless I personally agree with them.  I hold certain opinions and ideas, and my world view is reflective of those realities.  This is NOT a defense of the left, but more an indictment on the right.


If you have a message that you want to spread, but can't do it without bringing to the lowest level of discourse possible, please just keep it to yourself.  there are too many idiots out there that just might act on it.

How much more evidence do you need that when a large group of leading conservatives condones elimination of their political adversaries that makes it much more likely that people will act on it.  Do we have to wait for the grissly consequences as they did in Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1920-30s or do we strongly condemn it now?
I saw quite a few guns brought by right-wingers at the Tea Party rallies and at congressional functions but did not see any by brought by liberals or progressives.
Why would reason say that?
I still can't believe a lot of you are asserting that right wing rhetoric directly incited Loughner.  The guy was just a nut case out of millions and millions of people.  He had prior contact with Giffords back to 2007.  He is no different then someone who would have shot up a school.  I'd also like to remind you that he was restrained by a person who had their concealed weapons permit and had a firearm on him and was prepared to use it.  He even went out of his way to exit the store he was in and come to the scene and assist the people who had started to restrain Loughner.  YOU are responsible for your safety and the safety of your fellow citizens, not the state. 
Who is saying there is a direct link?   Even if there isn't.  Should we wait until there is a direct link before we tell our politicians and political pundits to knock it off.  As for each individual being responsible for there own safety.  I would rather feel like I can walk down the street and not have to get in a fight to live my everyday life.  Besides, it sounds like Giffords was good with a gun.  Lot of good that did her.  As for him meeting her in 2007,  Who the hell has said that violent rhetoric is a new phenomenon.  I am starting to think that people on the right don't want to claim him so are invoking the "no true scotsman" fallacy.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service