Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
I was referring to my conclusion, not yours.
The circumstantial evidence IS overwhelming.
Much as I see what I am looking for in this event, you see hypocrisy because you are looking for it.
But I am not guilty of that which denounce. I am not declaring that the Tea Party is the most dangerous force in history. I am not arguing for Second ammendment solutions to an opposing opinion.
This act is being attributed to a madman whose actions defy explanation. I do not agree with that conclusion.
Visible leaders of the political right-wing are inciting their base against the left for political gain. The lead-up to the 08 election was fraught with hatred and fear directed at both Clinton and Obama. Beyond the oft-cited Palin crosshairs, the message from the right was extreme, personalized, and implicitly endorsed by the leaders of the Republican party.
Arguing that a 22 year old with political interest was not influenced by the TV ads (which were massive investments in Arizona, and not just in the federal election) and the opinions formed with friends and neighbors (that collectively were defined by the hate speech to some extent) - these are not a randomly chaotic series of events - this was a logical extension of a pattern.
|
Thats where your argument goes off of the rails, his politics if we are to believe everything that he heard were not defined by the tea party or by the reps or democrats. They were insane conspiracy theories that fit into no sane political spectrum and fueled by a mentally ill mind.
We also know from interviews that he asked a question of Gifford that made no sense and when she couldn't answer it, it more then likely triggered his anger because he felt he either wasn't being heard or wasn't being recognized as some brilliant mind.
Circumstantial evidence will not get you a conviction, nor does it make your argument right.
You point out Stimpy's list of violent actions which are sprinkled with individuals who were either linked to racial groups or survival groups and you automatically apply that to the theory that because those beliefs are right of central that it automatically condemns the tea party or the republicans or their supporters as the same type of individuals, then you take the further step and try to attach it to a person that more then likely wasn't fueled by political rhetoric or ads, but was motivated by political theory that was formulated out of comic books and T.V. shows shot for free by public broadcasters.
Your casting a really wide net.