“False ‘national debates’ that journalists only have with themselves”
The “media” are not an agent of the democrats or the leftists. It is the other way around.
Circumspect though this editorial might be, they lose me when writing of a "legitimately moving speech."
Sorry, but I don't buy, no matter what our Licensed Conservative pundits allow.
I don't buy the premise on bit and found the Federal Executive's "putting the 'me' in 'memorial'" shameless and grossly opportunistic. I couldn't give a tinker's damn what anyone else's "perception" of it might have been.
"A week we could have all done without," covers it for me.
Prayers for the victims and their families, but prayers mostly for my country, showing increasing signs of plain soul-sickness that, while the right circumstances, deteriorate the situation badly and at an alarming speed.
People who look to the president, whoever he or she might be for "healing," or more especially to "heal their land," are already in a precarious situation, and ready to believe anything.
Three phases of totalitarian social control:
1) Guilt and re-education
2) Intimidation
3) Violence
The liberal press is dying and are grasping at anything to reassert their control over the news spin. It’s fruitless. They are just damaging their credibility even more rapidly.
Liberals are on the losing end of the political arguments. Rather than reassess, repackage, and actually come into line with the mainstream of the citizenry, they continue on a seek and destroy mission against conservatives. Any current tragic event is twisted and painted with the same broad brush - conservative rhetoric caused the event. Used to be that Bush caused it, but he’s out of the picture now and “conservative rhetoric” is the new meme. This strategy only steels the spines of conservative voices.
Unjust persecution always produces the opposite effect than the one desired.
It comes as no surprise that Obozo wants to embrace civility—the Right is beginning to push back. But civility was abandoned by the left wing over 40 yrs ago. They have used the tactic of vilifying their political opposites from the get go. Disagree with a liberal at any time since the ‘60’s on ANYTHING and you were called “Hitler” a “Nazi” a “Fascist” or just plain “evil”.
Problem is, Obozo, this “incivility” isn't going away. When the right wing starts calling you names it's done THOUGHTFULLY rather than as a tactic to score points.
Beware the anger of a just man.
Sounding a bit like Dwight Schrute...
. . .
LOL that’s perfect!
Loughner’s actions didn’t spark the conversation, the media (and the Democratic Party) sparked that conversation because they were already locked into a storyline, like a newspaper that has already written an obituary for a still living actor. “People are debating” or a “national conversation has started” is a cheap gimmick for the author — or his editor — to talk about whatever they want to talk about. If The New York Times ran an untrue story tomorrow announcing that I beat my wife, it would be the Times that sparked the conversation about my wife-beating, not anything I did.
Exactly.
Evidence mounted that Jared Lee Loughner was no Tea Partier, was not a Sarah Palin disciple, and didn’t even listen to talk radio.
Media shoots self in foot again and again..........
What the left thinks about the Tucson shootings and culpability is that ALL!!! conservatives are nasty, dangerous gun nuts who are a few exhortations away from going berserk and indulging in mass slaughter. The content of the letters to the editors by self-identified libs confirms the feeling I have that many libs think just like their politcal allies in the media. They actually believe Tea Partiers are all gun nuts looking to shoot someone. Libs have been touting this screwball view since Goldwater.
Confirmation bias in the media is its tendency to favor information that confirms its preconceptions or hypotheses, regardless of whether the information is true. Confirmation bias has contributed to the media’s overconfidence in its own leftist beliefs in the face of contrary evidence which leads to some disastrous editorial decisions.
- JP