Fox needs to be stopped!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK, Chas, Whell, JJIII and/or Twodogs. Take a moment and read this short piece and please explain where it is that you take issue with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/op...1.html?_r=1&hp

Item one:

"But he is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery."

Doesn't exist within the "rank and file" conservatives, and is typically confined to individuals like Mr. Loughner. Now, if it makes my friends on the left more comfortable to look at their political opponents through a particular lens, or ads grist to their mill, so be it. But then I have to ask: who's then continuing to stoke the fire of hate, fear and intolerance once Mr. Loughner's (and those like him) dirty deed is done.

Item Two

"This rage, stirred by talk-radio hosts, required marshals to give the judge and his family 24-hour protection for a month. Around the nation, threats to federal judges have soared for a decade."

Is it really "stirred by radio talkshow hosts" exclusively, or at all? I hardly think so. The rise of the internet has given folks like Mr. Loughner ready and easy access to like-minded individuals and groups of individuals. Its exactly the same tactic that our radical Islam uses to attract and retain its militant operatives. Its easy (and, if I may, intellectual lazy) to demonize talk radio and Fox News in this case, and any other case you can point to. However, I can point to recent examples of individuals who carried out misdeeds and likely never tuned in to Fox, but were quite well traveled on the internet.

Item Three

"It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."

I just love this rhetorical tactic. The above quote is like saying: "I'm not saying you're ugly, but shit, dude, you're ugly." Did any violence break out at any Tea Party Rally? No. Did the most recent Tea Party gathering begin or end with threats of violence, mobs descending on public offices and trashing or shooting up public buildings? No. I just don't get the connection here. Likely because ideologically I'm quite close to those folks whom the NYT article would like to paint with the same broad brush, yet I and like-minded folks I know would never threaten a public official or shoot up a shopping center. Real life just doesn't match the portrait that this NYT editorial would like to paint, but I suspect it comports nicely with the version of reality that some NYT readers would like to believe - some members of this discussion included.

Item Four

"Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit."

These scenarios used to give the left an opportunity to stand up and blow their cookies about a single issue: gun control. Now the left is doubling - down and using this issue to amplify their b*tch about the right being the locus of all political anger.

Now, were was I. Oh yeah. Still awaiting a response to this post:

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...2&postcount=37