Washington - When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords found herself targeted for defeat last year with a map showing a rifle's crosshairs over her district, she worried it might incite violence.
"When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action," she said, after Sarah Palin used the crosshairs to tell her followers of 20 House Democrats who should be defeated.
There's no evidence that Palin's ad contributed to a gunman's decision Saturday to shoot Giffords in a rampage that killed six bystanders and left her gravely wounded with a brain injury. But the shooting is sparking an intense debate over whether incendiary political talk across the country — punctuated with references to guns and the blood of slain politicians — is a real danger, or merely vivid political rhetoric.
Many liberals say it's definitely dangerous. They say it fuels anger and could help push some who seethe with rage over the line into violence.
Many conservatives say it's just talk, and that any attempt to blame them for Giffords' shooting is a cynical attempt to exploit a tragedy for political gain.
This much is clear: Images of bloody violence have been rising in political debate in recent years, and experts say that can find a ready audience among the mentally unbalanced
.
"Paranoia is the most political of mental illnesses. Paranoids need enemies, and politics is full of enemies," said Jerrold Post, the director of the Political Psychology program at George Washington University and the author of the book, "Political Paranoia."
GO HERE to read more.
10 comments:
I just can not believe that the left is somehow going to put some blame on Sarah Palin because she used crosshairs on her website. How in the hell would this make someone go shoot people?
When someone says "don't retreat, reload" what do you think that means?
it is a metaphor meaning don't run away. Stand and fight. It can be done many ways. In the political arena it means get out and vote to get your voice heard. Don't run away by taking the position that your vote won't matter anyway. It means don't fall victim to apathy. That's all it meant.
Poor choice of metaphor when some crazy takes it literally.
The msm will not point this out, but most of the violent rhetoric comes from the left.
9;22 unless you have done some kind of comprehensive media survey, how can you report your statement as fact? No wonder you don't like the "MSM"; their standards are just a bit too high for you.
This crazy man has been stalking Rep. Giffords for over 3 years! He tried to kill her because he did not like how she responded to one of his questions. This had nothing to do with crosshairs or Sarah Palin. This guy was a freak just John Hinkley, Mark David Chapman and the Unibomber.
Does it really matter if this guy was motivated by Palin? Maybe it is irrelevant. No one, left or right, should be using violent images to get their point across. If they don't have the vocabulary to find a nonviolent alternative, go back to school or buy a thesaurus. And from the reaction of many on this site, there are always those imbeciles who think the metaphor is meant to be literal. Take the politics out of the debate, but take the violent references out of politics.
What is puzzling is that all these politicians haven't asked themselves "why do so many people hate us?"...with an approval rating hovering around 20% ( the 20% of the population that probably couldn't name the current President and would approve Jack the Ripper for City Council) they NEVER wonder why people hate them or resent their very presence. They are all slugs. All liars. ALL thieves sucking money at the public trough and winking at the backroom deals. Oh wait. Gotta go. the FBI is banging at my door.
if it isn't palin's fault, it's bush's
Post a Comment