Relent<
1st Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 3,231
- Points
- 36
So, regardless of whatever political views each side are defending, two great controversies have popped up on either side:
The democrats think that the attack, while not supported or endorsed by the republican party, is a result of the hate-speech that conservatives have been tossing at their parties views and constituents.
The Republicans (or at least Rush Limbaugh) believe that this is a stunt being attempted by the democrats to win sympathy for their viewpoints, and criminalize the opponent demographic.
Certain facts of the matter remain consistent, however; the attacker was diagnosed as having psychosis, delusions of persecution, and possibly schizophrenia. He was unemployed, and a dependent of the state (I think) and they are presently wondering where he acquired $500 with which to purchase guns and ammunition (ironically, from a local walmart) with which to orchestrate the attack.
******
Those are the present facts, as according to the abc world news. These are my opinions.
I think that the democrats may be onto something: not that all republicans are criminally insane, but its sort of like John Lennon and "the Catcher in the Rye." The irony of that analogy is that conservatives were the ones who banned that book, holding it accountable for the assassination in a subliminal context. But the latest republican campaigns against the liberal agenda, and the violent context of their slander could easily be manipulated in much the same way. It certainly makes more sense than the shit Limbaugh is spouting.
I guess my standpoint on the matter at present is that there is a plausible aspect to the current accusations against republicans; but the republicans are not DIRECTLY responsible. I'm not here to make conspiracy theories, only to point out that maybe--just maybe--the game of politics is getting just a little out of hand in regard to certain groups.
The democrats think that the attack, while not supported or endorsed by the republican party, is a result of the hate-speech that conservatives have been tossing at their parties views and constituents.
The Republicans (or at least Rush Limbaugh) believe that this is a stunt being attempted by the democrats to win sympathy for their viewpoints, and criminalize the opponent demographic.
Certain facts of the matter remain consistent, however; the attacker was diagnosed as having psychosis, delusions of persecution, and possibly schizophrenia. He was unemployed, and a dependent of the state (I think) and they are presently wondering where he acquired $500 with which to purchase guns and ammunition (ironically, from a local walmart) with which to orchestrate the attack.
******
Those are the present facts, as according to the abc world news. These are my opinions.
I think that the democrats may be onto something: not that all republicans are criminally insane, but its sort of like John Lennon and "the Catcher in the Rye." The irony of that analogy is that conservatives were the ones who banned that book, holding it accountable for the assassination in a subliminal context. But the latest republican campaigns against the liberal agenda, and the violent context of their slander could easily be manipulated in much the same way. It certainly makes more sense than the shit Limbaugh is spouting.
I guess my standpoint on the matter at present is that there is a plausible aspect to the current accusations against republicans; but the republicans are not DIRECTLY responsible. I'm not here to make conspiracy theories, only to point out that maybe--just maybe--the game of politics is getting just a little out of hand in regard to certain groups.
