D’oh.
Well, alrighty, then. Here’s what happened.
Hillary saw that she was being overtaken by Obama and desperately needed to distract the liberal media from dwelling on it. So she had her friends at the Illuminati stage this “disaster”.
Now when I say “stage this ‘disaster’”, I mean that it really never happened. It was all filmed in a sound stage owned by one of her liberal Hollywood pals.
How’s that for a start?
[QUOTE=El Zagna]
And how long do you think it will be before someone comes up with a conspiracy theory? Perhaps one involving Hillary Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
The “O’Reilly Factor” starts at 8:00 PM EST.
But Hillary was scheduled to meet with the Rutgers girls today, this massacre has put her in a horrid spot. Thus, the conspiracy theory can not be to her benefit.
(Heard it on the radio coming in. Sigh)
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Please tell me that’s a joke, Airman Doors.
Even if you have to lie. (Though a link to the conspiracy theory for the morbid wouldn’t be out of line.)
[/QUOTE]
sorry, you’re way behind on conspiracy theories. The gunsmoke had barely settled before Prison Planet had two articles on this.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
- The shootings represents a typical day of car bombings in Iraq
- If only the gun-control people didn’t prevent them from having guns, they could have defended themselves
- Marilyn Manson
- Grand Theft Auto
- Gangsta rap
- George W Bush
- Global warming
- Imus / Rutgers
- 1920s Style Death Rays
- Hi Opal!
[/QUOTE]
Heard so far: 1, 2, 4, 8.
Sigh. Yeah, I participated in 2, but only insofar as I could find actual facts on the matter, to counter the hype.
Off to IMHO (the subject matter precluding a move to MPSIMS.
You know, one boo boo on somebody I know = one maiming of a local stranger = somebody dead in Sumter = a hundred dead across the state line = five hundred dead across the ocean. I think that’s just the way people’s brains work.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
It is an unfortunate part of human nature that we suffer from what I might call the “fatigue factor”. After hearing about so many bad things it is hard to maintain outrage over things that are perceived as awful or unjust. At some point you simply shake your head, tell yourself that it’s all so awful, and put it out of your mind. It becomes background noise. The war is ongoing, it’s going on 6 years, and it is not soon to end. With that in mind, do you find yourself on the edge of your seat every night waiting for the daily report? Of course not. I’d be surprised if you were even a tenth as outraged about the events of 9/11 as you were then.
This is fresh, it’s unprecedented, and it hit closer to home. It’s hard to put yourself in the boots of a soldier in Baghdad. It’s not hard to put yourself in the shoes of a college student. That is why this is such a big deal.
I would be willing to bet a goodly sum of money that the soldiers not on duty are watching the news about this just like we are. I did when I was over there.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Along similar lines, it’s harder to put ourselves in the shoes of people in Sudan who have died over the past several years than it is to imagine ourselves on a U.S. college campus.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Not to minimize the loss of a soldier’s life, but we (and they) understand that they’re getting into possible danger when they serve. It’s sad when they die, but it’s not the same kind of shock. You’re not supposed to be taking your life in your hands when you go to class.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. I also think that if 32 soldiers/marines were killed in one incident in Iraq, it would be a fairly big news item and provoke a bigger sense of sorrow and shock in most of us than the typical and terrible daily dose of 2 or 3 deaths.
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
I also think that if 32 soldiers/marines were killed in one incident in Iraq, it would be a fairly big news item and provoke a bigger sense of sorrow and shock in most of us than the typical and terrible daily dose of 2 or 3 deaths.
[/QUOTE]
In 2001, about 3000 Americans died in a terrorist attack (you might have heard about it). The same year, more than 42,000 Americans died in car accidents. But the big news story was the terrorist attack, not the car accidents, even though the car accidents killed 14 times as many people. For whatever reason, a lot of people dying at one time is more likely to make the news than people dying a few at a time, even if more people die a few at a time.
[QUOTE=randwill]
With 32 dead and every news program offering extensive coverage, if I’m a soldier in Pakastan or Iraq, I’ve got to be thinking; 32 dead in America is a huge tragedy but 3,000+ dead Americans over here is just a statistic and a small price to pay for bringing democracy to that region.
[/QUOTE]
And then there’s the 60,000 - 500,000 Iraqis.
Andrew Sullivan made an interesting point in this vein:
[QUOTE=randwill]
With 32 dead and every news program offering extensive coverage, if I’m a soldier in Pakastan or Iraq, I’ve got to be thinking; 32 dead in America is a huge tragedy but 3,000+ dead Americans over here is just a statistic and a small price to pay for bringing democracy to that region.
[/QUOTE]
If 32 American soldiers were to die in a single attack, it would be a fairly significant news story.
As long as we’re comparing death totals, 17,000 people a year are killed in the United States as the result of drunk driving. The Iraq War would have to go on at its current level of violence for about twenty years to kill as many Americans as die in a single year in drunk driving accidents. Yet people seem to accept drunk driving as a fact of life.
And heck, in the USA every year almost a MILLION PEOPLE die of heart disease. So why worry about the Iraq War when what’s needed is a war on Doritos and chocolate?
The VT shooting is a major story because 32 students murdered in their school is very, very unusual. Drunk driving accidents are an everyday occurrence. Soldiers dying for Dick Cheney is, sadly, almost an everyday occurrence. People keeling over because they’re old or fat and their tickers stop working happens every minute. News concentrates on stuff you don’t already know.