You are losing credibility with your rants. You are unnecessarily looking further into these events than you should be..................This is not political.

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/7531

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

 

Bullshit

Are you trying to say that U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was not shot because she was a member of Congress. Why did he shoot her then? Because she was at Safeway?

What fucking bullshit Ace.

 

Where was that meeting at El Casanova?

 

I will clarify myself.......... Loughner did not shoot Giffords due to any rightwing talking points..

 

Okay lets use your first link. This is what he concludes.

A large body of research shows that media violence has two major effects: it raises the chance that viewers will immediately commit violent acts, and it also increases the likelihood that they will react violently later in life.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/7531

Now, smoking increases the likelihood that you will get lung cancer, but that does not mean that you will get lung cancer. Many smokers smoke and never get lung cancer. So by him saying that it raises the chance and increases the likelihood, that honestly does not produce results worthy enough to be substantial for your argument. He might have shown a correlation at best, but he has yet to show causation.


Now lets go to your second link. This is what is concluded.

In her final report to the CRTC, Martinez concluded that most studies support "a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour." Although that relationship cannot be "confirmed systematically," she agrees with Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot who argues that it would be illogical to conclude that "a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances."

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

Now, again, at best she found correlation, but could not show causation.

Do you have anything that proves causation?

 

This meeting was during a campaign event of Gifford. It was a year-long grudge between him and Gifford.

 

Now now don't you know you cannot show what they do. After all it is Do as they say NOT as they do. LOL

 

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords


http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

 

Of course it is politically motivated. The shooting may have come about because she "blew him off" but that was political. Or was he questioning her about the cloud formations in the sky that day.

The guy is certainly unhinged, and of course certain things will come to trial that we arent privy to, but to claim that this isn't politically motivated either directly, or indirectly is burying your head in the sand.

 

But a campaign event is not political?

If Gabrielle Giffords had not been a representative in congress would her attacker tried to kill her?

 

You folks can't blame it on the right any longer, that is my only point here.

 

Have any right wing taking points used shooting democratic opponents images and violent rhetoric Ace?

 

We'll see, won't we? But the defensiveness of the right speaks volumes. They know what they've been playing at.

 

Fucking idiot

:excited:

 

Unlike this;

I never stated anything of the like. Politicians on both sides are guilty of that. This incident of the Giffords shooting was not caused by the right or the tea party, as the left wants to portray it as. Although I can't find any from the right yet.

 

How about the Tea Party claim ............

......... that Jared Loughner was a liberal? Where's you proof of that? You did post that didn't you?

 

I did post that and if I didn't I should of. He is a registered Independent, and years back when some of his friends knew him before we went to dream land, they knew him as a flaming liberal. I will also submit another link below.
1/9/2011

Left and Media (But I Repeat Myself) In a Fact-Free Frenzy to Blame Palin for Giffords Shooting


http://patterico.com/2011/01/09/lef...-frenzy-to-blame-palin-for-giffords-shooting/

 

OK, let's go ahead and assume a direct relation between aggressive political speech and subsequent behaviors of those pre-disposed to respond violently to it - just to get past the tangents.

Now what?

Is someone going to suggest that a speech maker be prosecuted? Are we calling for censorship? Tighten up the law around incitement to violence (I know it when I see it!)? Since you've all been part of the discourse - and not always constructively - how much punishment will you take on?

How should we distribute punishment for the other factors that contributed directly to his actions - how many years should his parents serve for not being good enough? Which heavy metal band gets sued first for singing about decapitation? Someone needs to answer for his position on the socio-economic ladder! Who's going to go find that bully that gave him an atomic wedgie in the 4th grade in front of everyone - he needs to pay the price for emasculating the shooter as well!

Kimiko - would some kind of apology be enough for you to stop artificially demonizing the empty talking heads? Stumbler - how do you get past your staunch anti-censorship stance to some kind of improvement? What specifically do you think would stop the tiny minority of cuckoos like this fellow from acting out?