he doesn't often care about facts.

Ba-ZING!

I thought he was on drugs.

Is a strange choice for a lead photo, I agree. I don't see any relation.

From what you said wouldn't he make an ideal person to depict?

Hi Keith, no offense you know I resepect you and all, I think either you are reading too much into the picture, or at the very least misinterpreting why I posted.

I maintain that the shooting was not politically motivated, and that it was solely the work of some crazed individual, and according the CBS poll, a great number of Americans most likely see this to be the case as well.

I thought it'd be obvious, but I'm more than will to explain why I chose Malcom X.

Actually, I had an even better picture, a cartoon that fit this story more accurately, but I could not find it on my hard drive.

So anyways, from what I understand about Malcom X was that he was often misinterpreted as a violent extremist, when in reality he simply fought for political change. From what I know about his histroy, Malcom X never lived by the sword.

The political rhetoric may be strong in America, or at least moving in the direction of being perceived as strong by some on the left but no one is threatening political violence, except for some government operatives like former FBI informant and white supremacist Hal Turner.

So anyways, the article was about political rhetoric, and agree with Malcom X or not, which personally I do, he was one of the most powerful political speakers of the 20th Century in my opinon, and I believe we need MORE speakers like him, and if ANYTHING, we need to crank up the political rhetoric, not tone it down, like some special interests groups and politicians are urging.

Sorry it's early and I only had one cup of coffee so far, so my thoughts are not yet in place but I hope that helps!

Thank you JohnA. That's extremely honorable of you. I actually have an unconditional amount of respect for those of us that can fight like cats and dogs on one thread, then demonstrate the grace and maturity to communicate and agree on another thread.

You just made my day. You please have a good day yourself as well.

So I also wanted to reiterate that the use of Malcom X's image was not intended to be racially motivated by any stretch.

Keep this in mind: While Malcom X's rhetoric was often divisive, after his visit to Mecca he saw that Muslims came in all different colors and ethnic backgrounds, and therefore his political rhetoric lost a lot of its divisive tone and he began to preach unity.

If there is anything that America needs is to overcome a lot of its differences and come together for genuine political change, and recognize that it is the media and the political establishment that is the enemy, not your fellow American.

Maas the problem with this thread is that there are a lot of people that will look at the photo and the caption but never read the story. Compound that with the fact, as you just mention, that there's a large degree of "White America" that still, after 40 years, have a negative preconceived notion of just who Malik El Shabazz (Malcolm X) really was. So when someone, regardless of intentions, plasters his photo on the front of a story that's criticizing 'political rhetoric", they then condone and or create an bias opinion for the reader on Malcolm without the reader ever having an opportunity to find out for themselves just who he really was. I obviously hold Malcolm in extremely high regard. As far as I'm concerned you might as well have used a photo of JFK.

Well, I was referring to people who thought that Malcom X was a violent radical IN THE 60's, not today.

But I do see your point, and I admit I didn't even think of it that way.

I love this picture and I still think it fits, but I'll change it upon hearing your point of view!

I've been following this conversation with interest.

I appreciate the fact that you were able to raise a question/concern and have it responded to.

Originally I felt it came out of left field a bit. I understood (or at least it made sense to me) why the picture was chosen and took no offense to it at all.

After reading the back and forth between you and maasanova I have a better picture of why you questioned it. I would, however, take issue with the comment made about the reader not having an opportunity to find out for themselves who he really was. I get that some might simply view the picture and read the headline and form a judgement, but that issue really lies with the reader rather than with the person posting. All of us have the ability to investigate anything. Often times I'll read something that I find confusing or intriguing and find myself digging for more information on that subject. We are all responsible for our own knowledge.

In any case...there is my unsolicited two cents. Thank you both...job well done.

Maasanova, you're a Superstar at this stuff. You're far greater than I'll ever be. I thank you so much for even taking the time to listening, consider and re-evaluate.

Much love and support from me always brother.

All of us have the ability to investigate anything. Often times I'll read something that I find confusing or intriguing and find myself digging for more information on that subject.
==============================================================
That's may be very well true, but's that's also our biggest problem. Most of us don't always read. I know that you, Maasanova, and I do, but a lot of others just don't. The truth about what think I know and what I may have believed yesterday will always be subject to revision as long as I can extend the courage to myself and read something different from what I'm accustom to reading. I find that very few of us will actually do this because most of us just don't want to change. Why ? Change often times leads us to the unknown, and the unknown is still scary for a lot of people. Fear is the foundation for the unknown. Anger, hatred, superiority, and inferiority are all rooted in fear. You cannot hold on to your title of feeling superior if you read or have read the "AUTOBIOGRAPHY of MALCOLM X", nor could I no longer walking around feeling inferior after I read it, which actually created a greater problem for the elite. They never wanted any of us to see one another as our equal because they've always been able to pit us against one another by way using race, religion and politics as the battle ground. Today we're beginning wake up to the realization that it's actually an economic battle (the haves and the have nots), but is it too late. We've been stripped of everything. Everything except for our will that is, for some of us.

Thank you again sister. Controversy should always bring about change, not hate. I always extend to you the right to question my comments. Not only does it help me and challenge my truths to what I hold sacred to myself, but gives me the opportunity to learn from you because you are my equal. None of us can do this alone.

I think a majority of people watching CBS felt that way cause by proxy they are kinda guilty too so it seems in the own best personal interests of the public will of coarse take no blame or responsibility it is a sign of the times self absorption denial and guilty consciences abound!!!!

crank it up dude!

See, we have a Constitution, so there is really not much we can do about gun ownership per se. It's one of the rules, not really negotiable, pretty much written out right from the founding of the country, for good or bad, that's the way we roll.

There are existing statutes and regulations that prohibit the mentally ill from owning or possessing firearms. A psych test should be required to enforce this regulation.

The Second Amendment is largely and wilfully misunderstood and misinterpreted by most people and even by the neocon-dominated and biased Supreme Court, all of whom chose to ignore the first part of said amendment that sets down the conditions in which the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed, i.e. within the framework of a well regulated Militia which is necessary to the security of a free State (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)

"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Maybe we shouldn't allow citizens to have guns. You know like they do in Mexico. It's so much safer down there. Remember the headlines January 2010? They read something like Mexico opened the new year with what could be its most dubious distinction yet in the 3-year-old battle against drug trafficking - 69 murders in one day.

Is that how you want it? You want to live in a country where the criminals are the only one's with guns? Sounds a little scary to me.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

The US average: 81 people who die per day from gun deaths . . . that's NOT how I want it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is their reasoning for making the rule. The rule is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is quite simple and self explanatory. They made a law, and explained their reasoning for making the law. But the law is the law. And in our country, we, well most of us, respect the laws as written. I don't know how they do it in your country, I couldn't say.

sorry Vier but just ass freedom of the press and freedom of speach are interconected equaly important prcepts they are still two seperate things/ideas/pronouncmentscontained within the first amendment. So is the equal and interconectedness of Militia and individual right to bear arms. There are as you say many restrictions and provitions for congress to make up the training and even existance of said militias save the power to the states to name officers and conduct training proscribed by congress. However no branch was given any say over the individual right to Keep and bear arms....that said there realy is nothing about limiting that arm from being a rifle and simi or bolt action or that each individual could keep more than one arm. but no, many often construe the fact that more than one coresponding concept is contained within the amendments that they are to be treated the same in all dealings.

. . . and you may ask yourself, where did these Mexican cartels get these weapons?
That's right, from your good old USA, the worlds largest arms dealer.

The margin of error is exponentially less the more people are questioned.

Also, you can believe the political rhetoric IS to blame. Even if what this survey says is accurate, then they could still be wrong.

Me? I don't really know. There are sure a lot of gun nuts shootin' down cops on the way to the ACLU. But I also see the point that Jon Stewart made:

"Crazy always finds a way."

How did The Beatles "incite" Charles Manson to do anything he did?

Let me get this straight,you think we should excuse the rightwing of this country for its "the dems are the enemy and must be stopped at all cost so America does not fall" rhetoric that in all likely hood led to this obvious loon to attack a dem over an anti government gripe? No I think we will press this obvious abuse of the press and publicity that it is and remind all that freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you say and more importantly what you indorse with that speech.