My Take on the Redux from the Giffords Shooting
I don't have to give one because Paul Joseph Watson has said what I wanted to say, and has done so powerfully in this piece which I implore you to read.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Monday, January 10, 2011
8 Comments:
Goes to Alex Jones site, noted "peacemaker" LOL. Inciting to violence is a valid crime, and should be used against those that do so.
Alex Jones did not write the article, and even if he did, that does not make it wrong. Jones may start "trouble" but he does not initiate violence.
Your arguments are in error. While "incitement to violence" may be a valid crime, its not valid to use it against people who don't call for violence, but merely express political dissent.
Should the state use it to squash political dissent, then the illegitimate violence comes from the state, not from those who express strong opposition to outrageous policies.
someone is going to make a good little fascist
"Make no bones about it – “tone down the rhetoric” means stifling dissent, it can have no other possible meaning."
...or it could just mean toning down the rhetoric.
Infowars wouldn't be a site I would consider totally legit. But since it's an opinion and not news piece then I guess that's irrelevant.
Conservatives are trying to turn themselves into victims of the "liberal media" in this. They cite people like Olbermann and Paul Krugman like they're journalists but they're just pundits. What they are saying is only their own opinion.
So far, just from the straight news reporting, I've heard that the shooter was a "liberal", obsessed with mind control, and obsessed with currency. I've even read one news story that had pictures from his place which allegedly showed an "occult altar" (but really looked to me like what a typical, single, stoner would possibly have in their house).
Sounds like a hodge podge of all sorts of things, but the currency issues are obsessions among some on the far right. So you can throw a bit of that into the mix, but not exclusively.
Guys, the shooter is crazy. He's not left or right. He has no systematic view of the currency situation, or any other situation. He's freaking nuts.
That's what gets me in all this. Left and right scream about which side the shooter was on, when the answer has to be neither- he's just crazy. But the political class never lets a good crisis go to waste and that's what is disturbing. They want to finish looting us and make it seem like WE are in the wrong to even complain about it.
Agreed about the shooter and the exploitation of a crisis. But the pattern I've seen here is:
1. A few liberal opinion columnists and broadcasters (not actual journalists mind you) trot out the Tea Party and Palin references following the shooting
2. Conservatives gladly take the bait and grab the victim card. Rather than calling out Olbermann or whoever, it suddenly morphs into the entire media out to get them.
I've read plenty of info presented objectively from many sources(FOX, CNN, NPR, etc.)that have the sum effect of leaving one saying nothing more than "gee that guy was nuts".
I see where you are coming from. As the article points out though, the Discovery Channel Shooter was an environmental whacko, and nobody more mainstream media than Rush Limbaugh asked Al Gore to turn down HIS rhetoric.
The real test will be if officials, not media, use this to trot out anti-constitutional legislation to tamp down on criticism of their looting.
Post a Comment
<< Home