AZ sheriff blames political rhetoric

Don't you think she was targeted because she is an office holder? Whether or not it was because of her specific stances, I don't know, but I can't escape the political nature of the crime. Of course there were other factors. I think the governor of AZ has a responsibility to comment on the hate that is spewing through her state regardless of whether a link can be established between the Arizona political climate and this shooting. Now is as good a time as any to bring these issues to the forefront, and as far as I'm concerned, this climate exists across our nation to a degree. Why did that idiot Palin take the gun sights off her web page? Because she obviously knew all along that it was alluding to second amendment remedies. She was just too stupid to realize until now how far reaching and tragic the consequences of her philosophy could be.

and on this thread, the first jump was right there ^^.

and on this thread, the first jump was right there ^^.

Wrong, Palin took down her gun sights specifically because of the shooting. There is no jumping to conclusions on my part for pointing that out. So again why did she take it down? was it to appease those on the left? Was it to avoid criticism? Was it because she feels complicit? Whatever it was, her reasons are directly related to the shooting.

I think the Sheriff, since he is not a Monday morning quarter back, understands the mentality of many in his town, much better than any of us. We'd all probably like people to speak with some sense too if we had to go running around putting out fires like law enforcement does. Even the secret service has said it's worse than ever. How someone can put a scope sight on a person, tell their followers to take them out and then, oh wow, it happens. Yeah, never could have seen that coming. :sarc:

Speech is free, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come with responsibility. Next time you're in a building filled with people, yell fire. See how that works out for you!

Don't you think she was targeted because she is an office holder? Whether or not it was because of her specific stances, I don't know, but I can't escape the political nature of the crime. Of course there were other factors. I think the governor of AZ has a responsibility to comment on the hate that is spewing through her state regardless of whether a link can be established between the Arizona political climate and this shooting. Now is as good a time as any to bring these issues to the forefront, and as far as I'm concerned, this climate exists across our nation to a degree. Why did that idiot Palin take the gun sights off her web page? Because she obviously knew all along that it was alluding to second amendment remedies. She was just too stupid to realize until now how far reaching and tragic the consequences of her philosophy could be.

Is it possible for you to make a comment without bring up Sarah...your dislike for her is recognized by all ou us...you need a new "spew topic", Sam.

I think the Sheriff, since he is not a Monday morning quarter back, understands the mentality of many in his town, much better than any of us. We'd all probably like people to speak with some sense too if we had to go running around putting out fires like law enforcement does. Even the secret service has said it's worse than ever. How someone can put a scope sight on a person, tell their followers to take them out and then, oh wow, it happens. Yeah, never could have seen that coming. :sarc:

Speech is free, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come with responsibility. Next time you're in a building filled with people, yell fire. See how that works out for you!

I think it's never a bad time for the Sheriff to talk about [the] escalating political tensions in his city. I think it would be irresponsible not to speak about this in the wake of politically motivated shooting that gets national attention. If his message reverberates in the ears of second amendment remedy types across the nation, that's all the better. You betchya!

The problem is where/how/when you draw the line in a regulatory manner, because nothing less than that is going to eliminate it.

With every election, we say we'd all like it to tone down, but the behavior and ratings of the 'news' organizations don't reflect that belief.

We've seen it escalate a lot with the internet and since the press organizations became so focussed on profit (and survival in the world of the internet.)

Reasoned discourse doesn't increase viewership. Focusing reporting on good things that have happened doesn't raise ratings.

When assassinations (or attempted ones) occurred in the 60's,70's and 80's the primary thrust of the reporting was on what happened. I don't, for example, recall analysis of how Bremer or Hinckley were twisted by political motivations being the lead item of the story moments after it happened.

The internet and the prostitution of the 'news' organizations has changed all of that and the problem of restraint and manners extends well beyond politics. (Violent movies, video games, Paris Hilton w/out underwear, etc..)

As soon as you start legislating that, you've pretty much ended our Constitutional protections on free speech. It may not happen all at once, but it will happen.

who is talking about legislating anything? I am talking about demanding our elected officials and our news media act with some maturity about their choice of words...and to realize that the words of those who are seen as "in power" do have consequences...it is up to the American public IMO to say enough is enough and demand-- through w/drawing advertising and voting differently and writing, calling elected officials, that the violent language stop.

And, besides, what is the benefit of such language? Just on the off chance that it might be correlated someway, Is one word of it worth the life of that nine year old, the judge, the other innocent ones? And, now that I've read the other posts before this one, if this tragedy causes our country to look at the kind of language we are using in our political and media arenas, and then, causes even one of the participants to change his or her behavior, then, I think it is a good thing to get from the tragedy...just because we have the freedom to say or do something in this country, does not mean we should do it just because we can.

I don't think there is need for legislation. The system seems to be self-regulating. Free speech is a two way street as the Sheriff has shown us. He must be doing something right since it appears the people getting most unhinged by his remarks are either part of the problem or are oblivious to it.

Clock, corner and time out.

Can some statistics geek come up with numbers that correlate relationship between violent crimes and 'heated rhetroric'. I for one do not subscribe to the idea that political speech is any more incendiary today than in the past. If the theory is that we are a more violent society since Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al dominated the airwaves, there should be an upward correlation in violence against politicians. I would wager that there is less violence inflicted upon elected officials now than at any period in our country's past.

I might be wrong, but it will be interesting for someone to figure it out.

I believe the Secret Service is one of the sources saying that wack-a-doo behavior and political violence is on the rise.

The Congresswoman shot is one of many who has received threats and also had her office vandalized.

There was initially some doubt as to whether she was the primary target or whether the federal judge was - because thanks to heated debate on talk radio about one of his cases he received death threats.

Bear in mind that the same week they were being shot, mail containing incendiary devices was being sent to the Governor of Maryland and the Transportation Secretary, and to the Head of Homeland Security.

Clock, corner and time out.

Can some statistics geek come up with numbers that correlate relationship between violent crimes and 'heated rhetroric'. I for one do not subscribe to the idea that political speech is any more incendiary today than in the past. If the theory is that we are a more violent society since Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al dominated the airwaves, there should be an upward correlation in violence against politicians. I would wager that there is less violence inflicted upon elected officials now than at any period in our country's past.

I might be wrong, but it will be interesting for someone to figure it out.

I agree. There has been political vitriol throughout history.

I'm not criticizing the sheriff. He seems like a nice man who was a friend of the judge and was speaking out of emotion. Understandable.

Clock, corner and time out.

Can some statistics geek come up with numbers that correlate relationship between violent crimes and 'heated rhetroric'. I for one do not subscribe to the idea that political speech is any more incendiary today than in the past. If the theory is that we are a more violent society since Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al dominated the airwaves, there should be an upward correlation in violence against politicians. I would wager that there is less violence inflicted upon elected officials now than at any period in our country's past.

I might be wrong, but it will be interesting for someone to figure it out.

I think the sheriff is talking about extremism and antigovernment activism. I can't prove that advocation of violent overthrow can create a climate of violence, so I guess you got me there. Maybe it actually makes everybody more peaceful and loving.

I believe the Secret Service is one of the sources saying that wack-a-doo behavior and political violence is on the rise.

Stats please. Maybe this is due to unprecedented snooping power and idiots outing themselves on youtube instead of their community low power AM radio station (as wingnuts used to be limited in their outreach ability)?:idontno:

Stats please. Maybe this is due to unprecedented snooping power and idiots outing themselves on youtube instead of their community low power AM radio station (as wingnuts used to be limited in their outreach ability)?:idontno:

Don't have a stats link, but I was adding some more incidents to my other post to support that claim while you were typing this.

Exclusive: FBI details surge in death threats against lawmakers - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=3&ref=opinion (get the link labeled 'report' in the second paragraph . It's a DHS report in pdf format)