• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do political pundits cause violence?

Do you think political pundits cause violence?

  • Absolutely. They are just as guilty as the criminal.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Absolutely not. Only the criminal is at fault.

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Other (explain, please)

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Total voters
    23
Agreed.

Who is persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime?

There were certainly questions about Bill O'Reilly and the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Excerpted from “O'Reilly's campaign against murdered doctor; The Fox News star had compared Tiller to a Nazi, called him a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day"” BY GABRIEL WINANT, Salon, SUNDAY, MAY 31, 2009 16:32 EDT
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]hen his show airs tomorrow, Bill O'Reilly will most certainly decry the death of Kansas doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday while attending church services with his wife. Tiller, O'Reilly will say, was a man who was guilty of barbaric acts, but a civilized society does not resort to lawless murder, even against its worst members. And O'Reilly, we can assume, will genuinely mean this.

But there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer." …
 
There were certainly questions about Bill O'Reilly and the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Saying that someone is a bad person is not the same thing as saying that someone should kill that person; not even close.
 
"Do political pundits cause violence?" Of course they do. And I believe some intend to for the political gain. I believe someone like Bill O'railly should be held responsible when he continusely calls a doctor a murderer and "baby killer" for months and finally some idiot shoots him, or when Rush Limbaugh calls democrats "bastards that must be defeated at all cost", and people start spitting on and threating them. Or when Glenn Beck suddenly decides the IRS that hasn't changed a bit suddenly becomes evil because we have a democrat president and is now stealing your money, and some fool flies a plane into a building because of it trying to kill IRS employees. This is wrong, It's evil, and I don't understand why decent "moral" Christian republicans don't speak out against it. It leads me to think there are no moral Christian republicans. They just say they are.
 
I have never heard Bill O'Reilly, Rush or Glenn Beck encourage their listeners to murder someone. Speaking out against a doctor that kills babies isn't equivalent to causing a man to murder him. When Rush says that the Democrats must be defeated, where do you hear that he wants someone to assault them? When Glenn Beck speaks out against the IRS, please show me where he said to harm people?
 
The least that could be done against the pundits is to list their sponsers and then boycott them....
 
"Do political pundits cause violence?" Of course they do. And I believe some intend to for the political gain. I believe someone like Bill O'railly should be held responsible when he continusely calls a doctor a murderer and "baby killer" for months and finally some idiot shoots him, or when Rush Limbaugh calls democrats "bastards that must be defeated at all cost", and people start spitting on and threating them. Or when Glenn Beck suddenly decides the IRS that hasn't changed a bit suddenly becomes evil because we have a democrat president and is now stealing your money, and some fool flies a plane into a building because of it trying to kill IRS employees. This is wrong, It's evil, and I don't understand why decent "moral" Christian republicans don't speak out against it. It leads me to think there are no moral Christian republicans. They just say they are.

That's complete garbage. By your logic, anyone who speaks out with a strong opinion on anything should be held responsible. NEWSFLASH: people feel strongly about things. People feel strongly about other people, especially when those people have power over their lives.

If someone tries to attack Scott Brown, will you blame Keith Olbermann for calling him an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman"? Because I won't. He had an opinion; a stupid one, but an opinion nonetheless, and never encouraged violence of any sort.

If someone attacks a Christian Republican, will it be your fault for saying that none of them are moral?
 
I think the folks who say that the language some of these pundits use is never to blame for what some of their listeners might do is to gloss over the effect this language is intended to have on their audiences. These pundits play on the emotions of their listeners and viewers; they know just what to do to encourage joy or rage and not uncommonly all in the same one hour program. It's a form of entertainment but it is dangerous and for some who are mentally or emotionally challenged, it can result in tragedy.
 
I think the folks who say that the language some of these pundits use is never to blame for what some of their listeners might do is to gloss over the effect this language is intended to have on their audiences. These pundits play on the emotions of their listeners and viewers; they know just what to do to encourage joy or rage and not uncommonly all in the same one hour program. It's a form of entertainment but it is dangerous and for some who are mentally or emotionally challenged, it can result in tragedy.

Are you proposing that pundits be charged with someone when someone does something violent?
 
I think the folks who say that the language some of these pundits use is never to blame for what some of their listeners might do is to gloss over the effect this language is intended to have on their audiences. These pundits play on the emotions of their listeners and viewers; they know just what to do to encourage joy or rage and not uncommonly all in the same one hour program. It's a form of entertainment but it is dangerous and for some who are mentally or emotionally challenged, it can result in tragedy.

So we should fine video game companies, music labels and so on anytime someone claims an external source made them or inspired them to do something illegal?
 
Are you proposing that pundits be charged with someone when someone does something violent?

No, I am proposing that we reject pundits when their language crosses the line; when their diatribes leave reality behind and enter into the realm of fear-mongering hyperbole.
 
So we should fine video game companies, music labels and so on anytime someone claims an external source made them or inspired them to do something illegal?

There is no need for claims that particular media items inspire criminal action, the media companies have already imposed labeling games and music based upon maturity and content which very much affects the monetary value of the properties, in effect, fining themselves.
 
Last edited:
Of course they do, else why do you have revolutions, attacks on political and governmental infrastructure. Someone has to stir up the pot with words to make people do those things.. they do not happen by themselves. It would be like saying Hitler is not at fault for Nazi Germany.

Pete, you do know the difference between the official leader of a country, and someone who talks about politics on TV, right? Or did you just invoke Godwins Law for the heck of it?
 
Pete, you do know the difference between the official leader of a country, and someone who talks about politics on TV, right? Or did you just invoke Godwins Law for the heck of it?
Hitler is the source of all political principles. Did Pete tell you how Hitler left Spain out of the war because Franco allowed him to tryout his technology on Franco's enemies?
 
There is no need for claims that particular media items inspire criminal action, the media companies have already imposed labeling games and music based upon maturity and content which very much affects the monetary value of the properties, in effect, fining themselves.

So as long as pundit puts a warning on what they say then that alleviates them of any responsibility?
 
So as long as pundit puts a warning on what they say then that alleviates them of any responsibility?

That's an interesting concept; after all, if Comedy Central can label its programming based on maturity, language and content, why not Rush Limbaugh?
 
When you twist the facts to support your claims, or even hype up situations to convince people terrible things will happen if they don't act, or even straight out lying... that's the kind of **** that will cause people to rebel and act out violently. You then leave these people to determine the best way to "act" out. Most would simply take part in voting... a tiny minority will use violence... but all it takes is one act and the entire country goes insane with fear.

Saying **** like, "Don't retreat, reload"... even if only a figure of speech... is exactly what I'm talking about.

I may not like the liberal pundits, but at least they aren't still living in the Cold War era.
 
That's an interesting concept; after all, if Comedy Central can label its programming based on maturity, language and content, why not Rush Limbaugh?

You want Limbaugh to warn his viewers who are mostly conservative that he speaks or somewhat speaks conservative values on his show? As far as I know the only people who would find Limbaugh offensive usually do not listen to Limbaugh and therefore do not know what he says. The reason why Comedy central puts warnings on their shows is because a lot of their shows have adult humor that deal with sex and foul language. As far as I know Limbaugh does not curse or tell racial or sexual jokes.
 
You want Limbaugh to warn his viewers who are mostly conservative that he speaks or somewhat speaks conservative values on his show? … As far as I know Limbaugh does not curse or tell racial or sexual jokes.

I think listeners should be warned that Limbaugh is an entertainer, he says things that make some people happy, truth and facts be damned, and, no one should take anything he says seriously.
 
So we should fine video game companies, music labels and so on anytime someone claims an external source made them or inspired them to do something illegal?

'GRAND THEFT' GAME MAKER SUED IN SLAYS

Don't you think ranting and raging political pundants should be held to the same standard? Or at least make them say "the following is a paid political telacast". It takes a complete fool to not know these stink raisers are working directly for the republican party.
 
I think listeners should be warned that Limbaugh is an entertainer, he says things that make some people happy, truth and facts be damned, and, no one should take anything he says seriously.

Who else would you add to that list who needs to have a disclaimer before their show?
 
That's an interesting concept; after all, if Comedy Central can label its programming based on maturity, language and content, why not Rush Limbaugh?

Why not EVERYTHING, then? All news shows, all talk radio shows, all websites, all books, etc.
 
'GRAND THEFT' GAME MAKER SUED IN SLAYS

Don't you think ranting and raging political pundants should be held to the same standard?.

Video game companies should not be sued just because some scumbag says he got the idea from a video game. Besides that lawsuit will be thrown out of court. A civil lawsuit has nothing to do with the federal government forcing a talk show host to have some liberal anti-1st amendment partisan trash read before their show aired.

Or at least make them say "the following is a paid political telacast". It takes a complete fool to not know these stink raisers are working directly for the republican party

I do not support forcing some garbage like that being read before a talk radio program airs. If a pundit wishes to say some nonsense like that then that is his or her business.
 
Video game companies should not be sued just because some scumbag says he got the idea from a video game. Besides that lawsuit will be thrown out of court. A civil lawsuit has nothing to do with the federal government forcing a talk show host to have some liberal anti-1st amendment partisan trash read before their show aired.



I do not support forcing some garbage like that being read before a talk radio program airs. If a pundit wishes to say some nonsense like that then that is his or her business.

What have you got against people knowing the truth and the financing behind every message? Why should a party get away with skirting the law by calling their 24/7 negative political campaigning, entertainment? Everyone with a brain bigger than a pea knows that's all it is.
 
What have you got against people knowing the truth and the financing behind every message?

Truth? You believing in some leftist conspiracy nut crap is not truth. No Pundit should be forced to air a subjective disclaimer just because Limbaugh says some stuff or allegedly said some stuff liberals do not like.

Why should a party get away with skirting the law by calling their 24/7 negative political campaigning, entertainment?

Save your conspiracy crap for the conspiracy forum.

Everyone with a brain bigger than a pea knows that's all it is.

So where is the evidence that Limbaugh is paid for by the republican party. And please use credible sources. A pundit being perceived as a republican cheer leader does not make him bought by the republican party. Are left wing pundits paid for by the democrat party?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom