Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63
First I thought you said that very few if any major media outlets were inferring the acts of Loughner were either 'directly' or 'indirectly' related to what seems to be the new catch phrase 'vitriolic rhetoric' so I included the Rev. Moron's piece.
To your question, yes there is now and always has been nasty talk. Consider the fact that what may be perceived as nasty to some may be the norm for others. For example some may think calling Obama & Co. crooks for using public funds to bail out private companies is nasty just as some think calling the US troops at Gitmo the Gestapo and Bush a murderer and torturer was nasty.
We are in hard times where major movements either have or have the potential to take America on a new course. This raises emotion and thus nasty talk. It's as normal as a dog barking at a perceived danger. To mute the canine or politician is simply asinine. IMO
|
I’d also argue that the U.S. politicians, who in some distorted realty, thought that the 9-11 attack was somehow our ‘chickens coming back to roost’ or that Bush, the Jews et al had previous knowledge of, is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.
Sen. Durbin calling the marines stationed at Gitmo the Gestapo would also seem to have more vitriolic gravitas so to speak. Let's also not forget Rev Al Sharpton calling for the murdering of NYC police officers and of course the Rev. Jackson calling for Obama’s balls to be cut off. Amen
