After the tragic events in Tucson, everybody from elected officials to leftist talking heads have been pointing fingers at anyone who doesn’t walk lockstep with their politics.
David Rieff of The New Republic put it this way:
“There is really no doubt that the apocalyptic rhetoric that is the common currency of the Becks, Palins, Limbaughs and worse has the potential to make unstable people murderous”
The key there being “unstable people”. Hello! They are unstable people! Based on Mr. Rieff’s logic, Jodie Foster is responsible for Reagan being shot. BTW, the shooter was an atheist too! Is anyone blaming John Lennon, Madalyn Murray O’Hair or Frank Zappa?
Do I think that the Becks, Limbaughs, Hannitys and the like feed our fears or anger? Yes, I will admit that. But then so do insurance companies. Ignoring the dangers to us, our families and our country is foolish.
The leftists don’t use this approach as much. The leftist approach is more often than not superior distain. This is self-massaging in that it offers a sense of intellectual dominance or Holier than thou. The violent garbage being spewed at Palin and other conservatives reflects the frustration with being resisted. Their living with no self-decipline is exposed unless everybody does it.
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns banned. If a conservative doesn’t want to pray, they don’t pray. If a liberal doesn’t want to pray, he fights to have prayer removed from any facet of our lives. If a conservative wants to be healthier, he eats healthier. If a liberal wants to be healthier, he wants to sue McDonalds into doing away with Kid Meals. You get the idea.
TV, movies and video games are far more likely the culprits. These mediums actually glorify killing, death and destruction. In today’s society this runs rampant. The irony here is that the people who are pointing fingers at the “vitriolic rhetoric” are the very same people who will fight for the right to produce these violent movies and video games.
There was a whole new market out there that wasn’t being tapped. If all the rules are done away with, think of the money that can be made! But, to tap into that market, they first had to make it acceptable. It had to fit in with the mainstream. So, the marketing people went to work. Inching along, little fights along the way until anything goes. Anyone criticizes the violence in any of these mediums and the 1st ammendment comes up. We live in a country where people, teens and even children are encouraged to act on their own desires. They are now being told that doing so is ok. When people do this, marketing people and journalists can manipulate those desires, then people can be manipulated by those in control of the media. No need for self-control anymore, because everything is ok, short of killing. But even that line is being blurred now with video games. The better you are, the more points you get, the higher you advance is based soley on the number of people you kill! How do you teach children that violence is wrong when you buy them games in which violence is rewarded? Teach what you want, they spend far more time with their friends and video games than they do with you. You are merely a commercial in their lives.
Our children are being raised and enfluenced by marketing EXPERTS just trying to make another buck. The sad part is that most parents are just happy something is keeping them busy…until the police knock down the door looking for a real-life killer.
many of the arguments against gay marriage is from the bible, that’s why i included that.
where in the constitution does it talk about preventing homosexuals from marrying? the same place where african americans were 2/3s of a man or where women cannot vote?
“Culturally acceptable”? Is that the same as “The whim of the people”? My oppinion of right and wrong doesn’t swing that way…so-to-speak.
I wasn’t refering to finding gay marriage in the Constitution. I was refering to my basis of governing this country. You bundled my politics with the Bible.
My problems with gay marriage are about the rights afforded to families.
when polygamists and goat lovers become as culturally acceptable as homosexuals, you let me know. but until then there is no comparison.
where in the constitution are you basing your argument on?
Anything a group of people wants to change, THEY consider an injustice. It goes back to my point about doing away with all rules. Today you say the injustice is not allowing gays to marry. How long will it be before someone says that a man should be able to marry 2 people? What do you say to that? Or why can’t someone marry a goat? Isn’t that an injustice to someone who wanted to marry that goat? Or how about the poor descriminated goat? Don’t laugh, explain the difference.
Besides, I’m talking about using the Consitution. I didn’t mention the Bible, you did.
zack, america has changed significantly because people saw injustice and worked towards equality. without that progress, we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, there would still be segregation, two races could not marry, the mentally ill would still be locked up in asylums and homosexuals could not openly serve in the military. in every case, the culture at the time accepted the status quo of inequality…even though it was morally wrong. its not to say that those who lived during those ages were all evil, they were just a product of their times. times change and things are being more accepted. i know its scary but its reality.
today its still happening with homosexuals right to marry. liberals aren’t seeing rules that need to change, they see an injustice that needs to be changed. and the main opposition is not rational. they use the bible as part of their rationale. true, the bible mentions laying with another man as being an abomination, but what about loving thy neighbor? the bible says many things that are not applicable to todays world. and if the opposition does not have a rational arguement, that’s when the motivation begins to become more towards intolerance. just look at the opposition to dadt, every study accepted repeal and the main military leaders supported a repeal. yet republicans still opposed it. not rational so why did they oppose it?
its not that conservatives don’t agree, thats fine. its that in your disagreement, you don’t base your arguements on reality. and then in your opposition, you dehumanize an entire group of people. it seems like overkill so why are you so passionately against gay marriage? its not as simple as liberals want something changed and will call any opposition a bigot. its bigger.
You’re making my point about doing away with any rules! Who should be married? Conservatives are not trying to change that, liberals are. That rule was understood long before either. My point about liberals…or progressives is that when you decide that you would like things different, if conservatives disagree then we are bigots, close-minded, intolerant or stone age. Simply because we don’t agree. That’s the “superior distain” I refered to. This is not Buck, BTW. He’s a little taller.
buck, can you see the difference in the motives of the two political parties? democrats are putting forth ideas to try and move the country forward. agree with them or not, democrats are doing something. on the other hand, republicans are doing nothing but stopping democracy. they are fillibustering everything and watering down the policies that make it through cloture. they are adding nothing to the debate but opposition.
and to beat, they are putting forth very inflammatory words delegitimizing the sitting president and dehumanizing democrats. republicans could put forth ideas, debate honestly or at least turn down the rhetoric. but they don’t. they keep displacing criticism of them with new attacks or shifting the blame. which is what buck is doing is this post.
liberals are holier than thou? what about conservatives who think they know who should be married? or what a woman can do with their body? or what religion is acceptable? or how to profess that religion? trying to analyze liberals is preventing any introspection.
liberals are seeing the violent rhetoric, and are toning their own down. they are calling for a civil debate and calling out the hatemongerers. what are conservatives doing? lashing out to any criticism. why won’t conservatives take a look at their own behaviors?