All politics is polarized unless there is basically no difference between them. Perhaps you are used to in effect single-party rule. The US system has been "polarized" since President Washington. Weapons are in fact much harder to come by now, too. Until the mid-20th century virtually no weapon was forbidden for private ownership, so any loon could choose to be as well armed as the military.

If you want to show that something is worse NOW, then demonstrate that it is so vs the rest of US electoral history (good luck with that).

This was instantly politicized, and yes, more by the left than the right (presumably that sheriff is a D as he's blamed talk radio now, too, with zero evidence). I have seen some news, and blaming rhetoric is on every network as a possibility—and it should not even be out there for discussion as they have ZERO facts at this point. Any story even talking about this WRT political discourse is nothing but speculation—not news. Facts, facts, facts.

When Ft Hood happened, the immediate call (from the press, and the White House) was to not jump to conclusions even though the shooter was a Muslim who was in contact with radicals, shouted allah akbar while murdering, etc. The immediate call in the wake of THIS shooting, OTOH, is to "tone down political speech" when there is zero evidence that such speech had anything to do with this. It is quite possible the guy is on the other side, too. Or more likely is so totally nuts he doesn't fit ANY side.

BTW, note that in the case of Hasan and Ft Hood, that AQ has been known to intentionally recruit people who are already mentally ill, or who have some mental deficit since they are easier to control. That is a case of a larger, political organization seeking out the mentally ill to do their violent bidding. NO political movement in the US is doing this. None at all. So this is not political, it's a mental health thing. If a shooter killed because he heard god telling him to, would that make all religion responsible? If a nut said that he heard voices—and the voice was Obama—telling him to, would Obama be responsible? No, it'd just be a sadly insane guy as this very likely is.

Note that this also means that he's just as crazy if he's in fact a leftist, and it's not more connected to crazy left nuts like moveon, kos, huffpo, etc than it would be to the Tea Party.

He's CRAZY. That's it.

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians. :ping:

You only need to lean far enough towards the one pole, than the rest of the world looks as if representing the other. ;)

That's impossible, the US is more polarized than ever, and there are no duels NOW! ;)

As the story which is the life of Jared Loughner becomes more clear it is evident that politics is less likely the reason for his actions. What his motives were are unclear but politics don't seem to be the proximate cause.

The US political discourse has always been polarizing.

.......[a] violent episode in congressional history took place in this chamber on May 22, 1856. The Senate was not in session when South Carolina Representative Preston S. Brooks entered the chamber to avenge the insults that Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner ........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Chivalry.jpg

Well, what now, tater, you need to choose which one it should be:

or rather this:

:06:

Well: words do matter for sure.

What is said in the Bible!? :) If you sow wind, you will reap storm.

So better use less windy words and manners.

Rethorics never are a replacement for aregument. Most of the time they indeed cover the lack of argument, they have an inherent deceptive nature. That is what makes them a cheating trick, appealing not to the intellect but to lower archaic instincts and just sentiments.

It wouldn't be without constitutional precedent. :O:

Constitutional? Perhaps you mean historical.

BTW, combat by agreement is illegal in most, if not all states.

Note: :O:

The observational is sometimes more important than the subjective.

Did someone say polarized?

Source.

I was being facetious, skybird. That was a JOKE. If US political discourse WAS more polarized, then we WOULD have duels now. We DID have duels in the past, so clearly it was at least as polarized AND more violent.

Even bringing up political rhetoric in a news story related to this shooting is clear bias since there are NO FACTS to support that as even a theory. Bringing it up is making it something to consider, when there is nothing there. It's an attempt, in fact, to create political motives where no specifics are known to exist.

The removal of images is not because there is ANY cause and effect, but because the media has, and will continue to paint this as some sort of viable theory in the face of zero evidence. What has the perp said as far as his motive? Prove a link, or STFU (that's a message to the media). I saw his videos, there is nothing there.

It's the act of a nut until proved otherwise.

Funny - when has the right used the word "enemies"? The left has:

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101101/..._obama_enemies

But of course - its a truism that usually when one side accuses the other of something - they are in fact the ones that are doing it. The right says stand on the constitution - the left says anyone who doesn't do what we want is an enemy - and its the right that is evil and hatemongering. The left says anyone who disagrees is racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a slaver, while the right says sit down and lets talk about merits of the arguement.....

Yea - its all the right's fault.......

They have no choice, the sheriff is blaming the right and Rush Limbaugh. He's the authority figure giving press conferences knowing it will be reported. The congress is talking about curtailing speech—suggesting that political speech was connected, when there is no such evidence.

They all need to STFU until there are some FACTS.

Since they are being heard, the side being attacked as responsible (with zero evidence they are) has every right to respond.

It would be better if those in power, and those reporting instead waited for, you know, DATA.

Was it more violent because politics were more polarized, or because life itself was more violent?

In fairness, the right categorizes those that do not agree as un-American and dangerous as well. You are correct about the intentions of the left, but depicting the right as people that placidly stand on truth and justice is inaccurate; they are warped as well, but in the opposite direction.