Rush Limbaugh's Tucson Billboard & Right Wing Massacre Culpability

i don't think that using cliche'd phrases, metaphors and similes makes anyone responsible for another going on a shooting spree.

there was this thing called the coffee party movement that i joined as a way to protest the tea party movement. i was pretty excited about the idea. initially their entire purpose was to encourage and teach civility and respect in political discourse. it became a disgusting mirror of the tea party and i quit, discouraged. i don't think anyone is particular is to blame for the schism of american political discourse. it simply became an "our mob vs. your mob" pissing contest, something i've been watching since the bush era. there were proper public protests, then there was plain old nasty rhetoric. the problem is, no one wants to respect the people who have different views than theirs. instead of trying to teach people why they believe a course of action is good for the country as a whole, it became "STFU, you <insert epithet here> bastard! sit down and take it."

i'm tired of it. so i tend to vote for democrats when republicans are too powerful and republicans when democrats are too powerful. my hope is they'll be forced to compromise. because i don't trust either party any more.

 

Sarah Palin is more responsible than anyone else I'd say. The shooter mentioned her more than once and we all know about the map by now.

 

There should be some sort of intellectual atheist party to counteract the tea party. They don't even need to be atheists. Maybe just be able to read at a grade 4 level.

 

Rush Limburgher teaches a way of language . I've heard
call-ins use it wickedly , that is , without his professional restraint .
He is reptillianishly culpable and in the mirror of his students even scares
hiss-self .

 

gawd, you listen to talk radio? ugh. i'd be bald by now if i still did that. talk about your lowest common denominators. and i include all talk radio in that, including entertainment talk radio.

i know a lot of people take umbrage at the fairness doctrine, and i'm not fully sure how i feel about it. i do know, however, that being a person surrounded on all sides by conservatives that i've gone out of my way to expose myself to contrasting viewpoints. the problem with that is that i'm accused of being a liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. i just wanna know what people are thinking. i'm an adult, i can make up my mind after that. if the fairness doctrine forces equal air time, though, people who don't wanna listen can always just turn it off. so i suppose the only ones who would actually be influenced by it's reinstatement are people who were thus inclined anyway.

 

yep , i could get a tattoo atop me skull .

when i'm being a slug i listen to radio . actually i once was a public radio producer who rose to the top and fell and so i got a neurotic interest .

how could you counteract manipulative , propagagandistic language ?
mmm ... you teach the children well about wordiness . a healthy mind thinks
from the root of meaning , and ideas that
mis-associate will be evident as bad nonsense .

shall it be immoral to intentially make bad nonsense
and broadcast it upon the wild waters ?

careful . an alternative viewpoint can do this too .

 

The fairness doctrine would be terrible, for example if I wanted to hear Rush or someone like him I'd tune into the right channel, I don't want to hear people like that when listening to say NPR or the Rachel Maddow show.

 

All the Fairness doctrine does is give the target of a spurious or injurious claim air time for rebuttal. I can certainly see why the ones that get the benefit of limbaugh's ,hannity's, o'reilly's--et al--spewing of hate speech are not interested in having it back. There was a station in Hawaii that lost their license during the VN war for being so right wing that action was brought against them for their outrageous statements. If these right wingers had to prove their claims and charges(think death panels,Obama's birthright,ect) their shows would be cut to ten minutes.

 

i would definatley not say they are directly responsible for it but the violent rhetoric is definately spewing from the right end of the spectrum. im sure theres some 9-11 conspiracy nuts comparing bush to hitler but the hate mongering coming out of the right has no left comparison.

"if democrats ever dared speak coherently about what they believe, the american people would lynch them"

"if hitler hadnt turned against their beloved stalin, liberals would have stuck by him too" -ann coulter

"most of the evils in the world today can be traced to humanism, which has taken over our gov., the UN, education, TV, and most of the other influential things in life"

"we must remove all humanists from public office and replace them with pro moral political leaders"- tim lahaye

"like their nazi predecessors, todays homosexuals lack any scruples, homosexuality is primarily a predetory addiction" kevin abrams-scott lively

"when the courts abandon their legitimate role as impartial arbiters and seek to impose their will on a nation, a free people must respond"- council for constitutional restoration

"here again i draw on stalin, he had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty.'no man, no problem'"

"no man no problem, its not a structural problem we have, this is a problem of personel"-edwin vieira

"all enemies of christ in this world must be conquered"-heritage foundation

"secularist are at war with religous believers, its not a shooting war, but its a war"-janice rogers brown- one of 7 rejected bush nominees

these are not nesessarily a direct call to arms but they pass on the message that coexistance with liberals is impossible and they are speaking mostly to a largley under-educated crowd of paranoid mcarthyites so to an extent i think they share partial responsibility when one of their followers commits an act of aggresion and i would say the same of liberals if they were out murdering CEO's and preists and other people they dont agree with but theyre not.

 

Would it really be any different had he just taken 2 already loaded pistols with smaller clips instead? I mean christ the 33 round clip didn't kill people, the psycho killed people. If someone wants to go on shooting spree nothing is going to stop them, may I point out the North Hollywood shootout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
And these guys weren't expecting to go on a shooting spree.

You can't regulate crazy.

 

Really? Fox gives Glenn Beck one hour a day...

 

Exactly, in theory someone like Glenn Beck should have never been given any position of power, yet here we are.

 

Someone under a Glenn Beck video on youtube wrote;

"What people don't realise about Glenn Beck is that he is actuall the worlds greatest troll."

I'm starting to actually believe that.

 

hahaha, this time your joke makes me laugh out loud.

 

Seriously I can't wait for 10 years in the future when on his show Beck just all of sudden starts laughing and goes "Hahahaha, you fuckers, I got you all!! *hits bong*"

 

Maybe he's just doing the Stewart/Colbert thing from another angle. From a christian American angle. Seems to be working for him whatever he's doing.

 

He basically is. Beck use to on radio here in CT way back in the 90's, not talk show radio though, normally FM presenter, and essentially he'd do anything to get a rise out of people and get people talking about him. Hell it worked, god only knows how rich he is now, aside from the soft power he has from his show.