In the aftermath of the Giffords’ shooting, a debate over heated political rhetoric

[Crabtownboy]

Politicians in both parties need to tone down their rhetoric and the same is true with media talking heads. They can get their points across without using inflammatory language.

On Saturday, Arizona authorities suggested that's a theory they are pursuing.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in a news conference Saturday. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

The sheriff's comments echoed remarks Giffords herself made last year during the height of the 2010 midterm elections. In an interview with MSNBC last March, the Democratic lawmaker, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, noted her inclusion on list of lawmakers Sarah Palin was targeting for defeat that featured gun-related imagery. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said at the time. "When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti...oting-a-debate-over-heated-political-rhetoric

 

[mets65]

For the life of mean I can't understand how an R or a D behind someone's name can influence another person to automatically have so much disdain for a person. It's such an extreme form of judgement.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It's times like this when Americans need to stand together, so power grabbing leftists don't exploit an awful event like this in an attempt to expand their tyrannical grip on us.

 

[Aaron]

I told you the Left would milk this for all it's worth. The only way they can win a debate is to govern speech.