[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't imagine being that dude's lawyer right now...

Because you got no clue about the law, I assume...

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh I know exactly what you mean. You're conclusions aren't prejudiced, they're just based on prejudice

They're biased, but I assure that I believe that people are all equal in their potential for violence and destruction.

Maybe your opinions of me are prejudice? Did I just blow your mind?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

That dude's lawyer is the same court-appointed lawyer who represented the Unabomber and Moussaoui. No joke.

Great niche marketing

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They're biased, but I assure that I believe that people are all equal in their potential for violence and destruction.

Actions speak louder than words. Your behavior consistently shows otherwise

Maybe your opinions of me are prejudice? Did I just blow your mind?

Colbert already told that joke, bigotry against bigots and their bigot culture.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actions speak louder than words. Your behavior consistently shows otherwise

Just admit it, you have a longing desire to be my shrink.

You aren't up to the job, unless you can explain why I like to attach electrodes to my nipples.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You aren't up to the job, unless you can explain why I like to attach electrodes to my nipples.

Because you're a pussy, and won't put it on your d*ck ?

-t

[Macrobat]

Except, in Besson3c's alternate reality he thinks he can Jedi Mind Trick us all into not remembering his "must have been a right wing Tea Partier" rhetoric in EVERY thread about this sort of thing, the aforementioned Discovery Channel episode, the dude flying the plane into the IRS building in TX, etc.

His FIRST reaction is that it has to be someone on the right (despite the fact it nearly always turns out to be someone on the Left) - I begin to suspect he is actually Keith Olbermann.

[besson3c]

In Besson3c's alternate reality he is actually the sound effects guy from the police academy movies, and people don't want to have sex with him.

Discovery Channel episode? WTF, I don't even know what you're talking about... I'm pretty sure I didn't say much if anything n the IRS TX thing. When was that?

How come you guys seem to remember my posting history better than I do? It's actually pretty flattering, I barely remember what I posted a week ago.

[stupendousman]

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol - ABC News

"Limbaugh today railed against the media and Dupnik for trying to draw a link between the heated political climate and the shooting rampage, calling the sheriff a "fool." But Dupnik stood by his assertions."

Read the comments. The best one was this:

"This sheriff is the second most mentally disturbed individual in this tragedy."

Word.

He's decided to double down on the stupid. What an idiot.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How come you guys seem to remember my posting history better than I do? It's actually pretty flattering, I barely remember what I posted a week ago.

Know your enemy

-t

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Is that real? It has to be made up. Crosshairs of a rifle scope on her name?

[Chongo]

I see your map and raise you two with bulls-eyes

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I see your map and raise you two with bulls-eyes

Yeah, that's totally the same thing. Assassins in the US prefer bows and arrows. And just like Sarah Palin's map, many people, including Giffords herself, complained about it's dangerous implication.

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Is that real? It has to be made up. Crosshairs of a rifle scope on her name?

Yes. Sarah Palin is that reckless and irresponsible. We could ask her why she took it down, but she's afraid to talk to the media now. We probably won't she her again for weeks. :fingers crossed:

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol - ABC News

I'll do better: Rush Bails Water In Wake Of Arizona Shooting

Yes, Rush even tries to blame the sherriff for failing to stop the shootings:

Originally Posted by Fat Fascist Demagogue

"This kid sounds like he was very well known as a dangerous element around town. If there is a file somewhere about this kid in the sheriff's office," said Rush, and the sheriff had failed to act, then he would be partly responsible for the tragedy in Arizona on Saturday. "If he was so concerned about the Tea Party, where was security for this congresswoman's event on Saturday?"

So the sheriff is supposed to arrest people without probably cause now?

And then Rush tells a blatant lie:

"At no time has anybody ever called for violence," Limbaugh said. "We've never subtly promoted it." And, by the way, the Democrats' language is and was worse.

Try again, Rush.

Originally Posted by Gun waving cowboy

"Let me tell you what you've got to do," said Allen West, a retired lieutenant colonel. "You've got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house. That's the only way that you're going to win. That's the only way you're going to get these people's attention."

But what else should we expect from a former LtCol who interrogates prisoners with a pistol? Fncking scumbag.

Originally Posted by Sharon Angle

I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Yes, she is deliberately ambiguous, because she's evil, not stupid. A deliberate double-meaning.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Do you not think that there's a connection between early politicisation and the amount of rhetoric being handed around?

That makes as much sense as the killer's assertion that the government uses grammar for mind-control.

Ahh, but did you have the potting compost? All of the oldest and best grimoires speak of the need for potting compost.

Ok, you saved yourself.

Originally Posted by pooka 

Also, this is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Daring Fireball: Bull's-Eyes and Crosshairs

Originally Posted by Gruber

If there’s nothing wrong with Palin’s gunsight crosshair imagery, then I’m sure she’ll use it again in 2012.

She's politically dead, now. But yeah, if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it away?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We've also come to understand the term jihad and that there is a broad, concerted effort to bring harm to the West and their ideals.

"They hate us for our freedoms!" What nonsense. While Islamists do hate our freedoms, that's not the motive for their terrorism.

Originally Posted by Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit

The hardest part of exploiting this material is encountering the students and people who attend my public talks or read my books who’ve trusted Clinton, Bush and Obama to teach them about the nature and motivation of America's Islamist enemy. A good portion of these individuals truly believe that the United States is being attacked because of its freedoms, liberties, gender equality, Christianity, elections, etc, and not for what the US government does overseas.

See: Meet The Diplomat Writers | Author Spotlight | The Diplomat

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Fiery political rhetoric has been the norm in this country since its inception and the map with crosshairs is a relatively popular reference to battleground states/districts.

Disingenuous nonsense. MLK or JFK made fiery political rhetoric. What's new is violent imagery and gun imagery.

Most of the concern for the acts of religious extremism is its concerted nature.

I'm not sure what you mean by "concerted" here or why that's the source of concern.

There is nothing to suggest the jihad-seeking Muslim extremist is mentally deficient.

Sure there is. Suicide bombers are usually uneducated, impoverished, and mentally-ill or -retarded. They are pawns of educated elites who never put themselves in harm's way. The "educated fanatic" like the 9/11 bombers are rare, which is why that sort of thing doesn't happen much, and suicide-vest bombers are so common.

Scrutiny of Islamic extremism is generally focused around the lack of official, public denunciation which feeds the concern of ideological solidarity in violence.

This is laughably false. The scrutiny of the CIA and FBI is focused on the violent rhetoric coming from the mouths of radical clerics. They aren't "scrutinizing" silence, which would be the most pointless security activity imaginable. You just wanna say Muslims don't condemn terrorism often enough for your liking, when the facts are the opposite. Didn't you read this story: Mosque reports terrorist, but "terrorist" was an FBI plant.

Loughner, on the other hand, is a lone gunman, drug addict...

Drug addict? He smoked pot in high school. Grow up.

This is merely an attempt (as are perhaps some of those hyper-critical of fiery Islamic rhetoric) to silence speech they don't appreciate.

There are now LOTS of people recommending an end to violence rhetoric, including Fox News' Roger Ailes: "Tone it Down"

But Ailes called the use of such imagery "bulls**t" and said "both sides are wrong, but they both do it."

"I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually," the Fox News president said. "You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that."

Of course, he says the rhetoric didn't contribute to the shootings, but he is changing their policy anyway. Why? He won't admit responsibility. So why the change?

Crazy people are influenced by the rhetoric in their heads Mooreon.

Mooreon. Cute. But you're wrong. Crazy people are affected by what is happening around them. That's why mental hospitals control the environments of their patients.

It's a fallacy to point out to the ambulance-chasing opportunists here that this shooter and the likes of Palin and the Tea Party collective actually have very little in common including interests in Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, and atheism? Using your logic, I could as easily connect this psychopath to Michael Moore. He shot up the grocery store parking lot because of the violent rhetoric of Michael Moore. See how dangerous Michael Moore is? See how dangerous his ilk can be?

Holy crap you are dense. It isn't the content of the Tea Party's ideology that's relevant, it's the violent rhetoric being used. It's crap like this:

It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative, that sort of sh!t is not acceptable. It is dangerous. Crazy people will latch onto that.

Ahh yes, it's the violent rhetoric that sets off the inconsistent crazy person with crazy flights of fantasy. You're so close mckenna. Try again.

Are you illiterate? I said:

Crazy peeple are never consistent in their crazy flights of fantasy. The ideology isn't the issue. It's the violent rhetoric that's relevant.

I never said violent rhetoric causes crazy flights of fantasy. But violent rhetoric causes violent behaviour in crazy people. Go down to the local mental ward and advocate an armed uprising and see what kind of response you get.

No. I blame the song 'Suicide Solution' by Ozzy Osbourne and violent shoot 'em up video games. Oh, and Hitler... discuss.

Do we let mental patients listen to Ozzy and play violent video games and read Hitler? Seriously, what kind of effect do you think that would have on a crazy person? Do you think it might incite violent behaviour?

Now imagine our paranoid schizo listens to talk radio or surfs the web, and encounters some professional, respectable person that advocates or insinuates violence. And he sees the Tea Party carrying violent slogans on signs. And of course, his uncle and cousin go on and on about the need for an uprising in the US of A because of baby killers and high taxes. What's the effect? None?

Or imagine our paranoid schizo attends a mosque, and the imam throws out violent rhetoric about infidels and the government. Who's gonna be affected most: the Muslim doctor with 3 kids and a mortgage, or our paranoid schizo? And are you gonna write off the imam's incitement to violence as "fiery rhetoric."

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Me thinks the FBI will talking to the Kos

That's awesome! Are you gonna quote the total story now? That the blogger here took down the rant because really felt bad about contributing to the violent rhetorical climate, because of the shooting in Tuscon? Unlike Palin, who apologies for nothing.

My Apologies to This Site, The Victims, and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by BoyBlue.

Next time, Chongo, try to provide the entire context.

[lpkmckenna]

[lpkmckenna]

Jon Stewart is truly the Mark Twain of our times.

[ebuddy]

Touch a nerve chuckles? How many responses are you trying to stuff into a single post?

mckenna, as an ambulance-chasing leftist blowhard and "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunist, you're the lowest common denominator; the source of the "rhetoric" you decry and among a very elite minority of posters here who would stoop to this level. Your attempt to silence contrarian views by connecting them to the actions of a lone psychopath are transparent, shameless, and as disgusting as it gets. You're telling me to grow up?

Those are targets, not crosshairs!!! Bows and arrows anyone?!? You're a joke.

I notice nowhere in your list was an assassination movie about George W., any number of violent smatterings from the Daily Kos on a daily basis including the jokes about wishing Cheney had shot himself in the hunting accident, acknowledgement of the common use of maps of battleground districts using targets, Luis Gutierrez "taking the fight to the streets" if the Dream Act doesn't pass during lame-duck, or how about Joe Manchin's (D) 'Dead Aim' political ad firing a rifle @ Obamacare?

Every last voice of conservatism you'd wish to silence has death threats on them regularly; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin... every last one loaded to the hilt with security because of slobbering MooreOns looking to squelch free speech through threat of violence and intimidation and you're pointing a finger at them in context of a psychopath whose motive is still yet to be understood? Am I supposed to believe you're concerned for any of them?

Am I really supposed to believe that you wouldn't readily turn a blind eye toward incendiary rhetoric against a conservative pundit or figure? You can BS yourself, I'm not buyin'.

[stupendousman]

I don't think the left understands that it's this sort of irrational "debate" that moves it further and further from the "mainstream". Most Americans can see that this guy is a nut. When the left tries to blame Palin and Limbaugh, it doesn't take a genius to see that political blame shifting is involved and folks are trying to play politics with a tragedy. This doesn't hurt Limbaugh or Palin. Their supporters aren't going to shift away from them because of this criticism. What it will do is make the guy in the middle who isn't crazy about either side see where the real intellectual dishonesty is coming from and move away from it.

Yes, "bows and arrows? Hahaha. You guys do realize that marksman that use GUNS also use bullseyes as their targets for practice, right? I guess maybe I give you too much credit for thinking before responding, because this isn't really about rational thought but just political emotion.

Differences of opinion about policies are reasonable. This sort of equivalency debate is just loony.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why? He won't admit responsibility. So why the change?

Because not doing so helps those who don't have any other coherent message disrupt the "conversation."

It gives one side "noise" that helps block the "signal," which is exactly what those who are playing politics with this tragedy are really hoping happens. I don't think many besides the loony left take the imaginary in question literally. It's pretty clear that the shooter in question didn't do what he did because of any political imaginary he took in.

The thing is that when the left engages in violent imaginary, we don't have the same outcry from the right. No one really made a stink when in reference to his political opponents, Obama talked about bringing a "gun" to the fight. It's because they have a message other than fear and petty criticism.

The louder the left gets on these sorts of things, they do make it harder to hear real messages, but what message that does get through is that they are reactionary and intellectually dishonest. This is the sort of thing that is likely to "backfire" on them, to continue the metaphor.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is the sort of thing that is likely to "backfire" on them, to continue the metaphor.

*rim shot!*
to continue the metaphor

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Touch a nerve chuckles? How many responses are you trying to stuff into a single post?

There has been 2.5 pages of stuff since I last posted. That's a lot of bullsh!t to respond to. And your replies to me were pretty long.

Your attempt to silence contrarian views by connecting them to the actions of a lone psychopath are transparent, shameless, and as disgusting as it gets. You're telling me to grow up?

I'm not trying to silence any views. I am disgusted by the rhetoric of violence. I'm disappointed you're not.

I notice nowhere in your list was an assassination movie about George W.

Haven't see it, so I can't comment.

...any number of violent smatterings from the Daily Kos on a daily basis including the jokes about wishing Cheney had shot himself in the hunting accident...

Like i said before, national politicians and anonymous bloggers can't be held to the same standard. When liberal politicians start rifle-rattling, let me know.

acknowledgement of the common use of maps of battleground districts using targets,

If there's nothing wrong with Palin's poster, why did she take it down? Why is her spokesperson now calling the crosshairs "surveyor marks?" Why is Ailes directing his staff to tone it down?

Luis Gutierrez "taking the fight to the streets" if the Dream Act doesn't pass during lame-duck, or how about Joe Manchin's (D) 'Dead Aim' political ad firing a rifle @ Obamacare?

I don't know who any of these people are.

Every last voice of conservatism you'd wish to silence has death threats on them regularly; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin... every last one loaded to the hilt with security because of slobbering MooreOns looking to squelch free speech through threat of violence and intimidation and you're pointing a finger at them in context of a psychopath whose motive is still yet to be understood? Am I supposed to believe you're concerned for any of them?

I think it's horrible they receive death threats. I would also condemn violent rhetoric focused at them, if I heard any. But I haven't. Of course, I don't really read political blogs, and this forum is the only forum I belong to.

Am I really supposed to believe that you wouldn't readily turn a blind eye toward incendiary rhetoric against a conservative pundit or figure? You can BS yourself, I'm not buyin'.

Have it your way.

[BadKosh]

why should Palin say anything? She was NOT involved in any way to this tragedy. That all started with teh leftys in the media blathering BS without checking facts. Now the backpedaling is humorous as they are trying to spin this into stopping the critics of their policies or even worse, gun control, which never works on criminals anyway.

[Chongo]

If it hasn't been said before, he's been stalking Giffords since 2007, long before Palin was a blip on the political radar. (oops, another war analogy!)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If it hasn't been said before, he's been stalking Giffords since 2007, long before Palin was a blip on the political radar. (oops, another war analogy!)

Stop confusing the debate with facts. There's blame shifting to be done!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Stop confusing the debate with facts. There's blame shifting to be done!

Says the guy that was incessantly bitching about "the left" five posts up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Says the guy that was incessantly bitching about "the left" five posts up.

There's ZERO evidence that the blame for the shooting had anything to do with politics.

On the other hand, there's ample evidence that those on "the left" that have suggested this has anything to do with the "tone" of any individual politician they oppose can be blamed for engaging in such appalling behavior.

You don't have to "shift blame" when the evidence shows that the folks in question are guilty of what they are accused of.

[Laminar]

Awesome. Just....well...awesome.

[SpaceMonkey]

Let me recap this conversation in a way that would actually make sense.

The Left: "I'm so upset with the political rhetoric in this country. Did you remember that Gifford's office was vandalized? It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin should be careful about what they say."

The Right: "I'm so upset with the political rhetoric in this country. Can you believe how the Left is blaming us for somehow inciting this person? If anything, they are inciting violence against us! And how dare they tell us to say and what not to say. They are just using this tragedy to try to silence our opinions."

The Left: "We are not trying to silence your opinions, but please be more sensitive to your tone. Look at what Roger Ailes just announced at Fox. We think that was constructive."

The Right: "Well your people need that said to them more than ours!"

The Left: "Fine, done."

And, scene.

[Laminar]

Lefty.

[besson3c]

Can we agree that Palin's crosshairs graphic was pretty dumb on her part? I'm not saying she should be blamed or anything like that, but it was a pretty dumb move politically speaking, from just about all perspectives.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can we agree that Palin's crosshairs graphic was pretty dumb on her part? I'm not saying she should be blamed or anything like that, but it was a pretty dumb move politically speaking, from just about all perspectives.

I agree. Just like I agree it was pretty dumb on the part of those on the Democratic side who put out those maps that Chongo pointed out. I'll reiterate what I said at first. The violent and gun-related imagery in political adds needs to be put on pause. The over the top, vitriolic rhetoric needs to be put on pause. Regardless of who's doing it. Period.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Let me recap this conversation in a way that would actually make sense.

The Left: "I'm so upset with the political rhetoric in this country. Did you remember that Gifford's office was vandalized? It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin should be careful about what they say."

Makes perfect sense.

As you can see, this all started with the fallacy that "it was only a matter of time before something like this happened." Before what happened? That a crazy person would do something insane that would hurt others? Uh, yeah, that's been happening since time began.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have nothing to do with a crazy person acting on their own and killing people, and have no reason to "be careful" about what they say as it applies to the situation in question any more than Obama does in regards to his comments about using a gun on his own opponents. Including any of them into "something like this" is a SMEAR. It's political and it's an attempt to demonize political opponents using a tragedy as a prop. It's not a matter of just caring about others or wanting hot headed rhetoric to stop so everything that comes after "The Right" requesting that "The Left" stop smearing them in the way you outlined is irrelevant.

Doing what "The Left" is doing NOW is every big as bad as what they're accusing the right of. They are the ones dragging out the heated rhetoric all the while complaining about it. I always thought the left where the ones alrways complaining about how they really despised hypocrisy?

At some point people just need to shut up and stop beating the dead horse. The left doesn't seem to be able to help themselves. The old saying that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder about your intelligence, than to open it and leave no confusion on the matter, surely applies here. Once it was clear that this guy was a straight loon and not some right-wing fanatic, it was in the best interest for the left to have just stopped talking and save the debate for another day when it was more appropriate. Instead, many have doubled down on the rhetoric and I assure you the lack of common sense won't go unnoticed by intelligent peoplel.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I agree. Just like I agree it was pretty dumb on the part of those on the Democratic side who put out those maps that Chongo pointed out. I'll reiterate what I said at first. The violent and gun-related imagery in political adds needs to be put on pause. The over the top, vitriolic rhetoric needs to be put on pause. Regardless of who's doing it. Period.

OAW

Agreed. The Jon Stewart piece was well done too, although pretty rambly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can we agree that Palin's crosshairs graphic was pretty dumb on her part? I'm not saying she should be blamed or anything like that, but it was a pretty dumb move politically speaking, from just about all perspectives.

In hindsight, it isn't helpful to debate because it is "noise" at this point and because it probably always had the power to create this "noise" so it was probably a bad idea.

The fact is though that this is a dead horse about something that happened that is "old news" and we've already had this discussion. The current events have nothing to do with the debate at hand except it provides people who already don't like Palin a club to continually beat her (and her dead horse) with politically. You can try and convince yourself that this has anything to do with the people making the big noise about this caring about toning down rhetoric, but it's pretty hard to swallow that as they are engaging in heated, unnecessary political rhetoric. The irony is staggering.

Every time someone brings this up, months after it happened, in conjunction with something totally unrelated, they are doing so in order to ratchet up rhetoric. Plain and simple.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Clearly, as demonstrated by our friends on the left, this issue isn't about the lone actions of a deranged person, but about silencing free speech posted on websites of completely unrelated people we may happen to disagree with.

So has Lady Gaga taken down her website yet?

Why no apology yet from Rachel whats-her-face?

And why hasn't Target changed it's name and logo yet? That isn't just for bows and arrows!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In hindsight, it isn't helpful to debate because it is "noise" at this point and because it probably always had the power to create this "noise" so it was probably a bad idea.

The fact is though that this is a dead horse about something that happened that is "old news" and we've already had this discussion. The current events have nothing to do with the debate at hand except it provides people who already don't like Palin a club to continually beat her (and her dead horse) with politically. You can try and convince yourself that this has anything to do with the people making the big noise about this caring about toning down rhetoric, but it's pretty hard to swallow that as they are engaging in heated, unnecessary political rhetoric. The irony is staggering.

Every time someone brings this up, months after it happened, in conjunction with something totally unrelated, they are doing so in order to ratchet up rhetoric. Plain and simple.

I agree with you here, maybe for the first time in the history of the universe

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't give a shit about targets being put up by Palin or anyone else. I don't give a shit about any politician or anyone saying "I'm gunning for ya!" Who gives a shit? Anyone taking these metaphorical statements as serious advice is completely wacko.

The last thing we need is more political correctness - but of course, clearly, with all the whinging going on here, we're going to get it.

greg

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Agreed. The Jon Stewart piece was well done too, although pretty rambly.

I thought it was pretty good. And sincere.

His best point: nothing we do will stop crazies.

What he doesn't address, though, is how hurtful mocking and parody can be, and how laughing at it doesn't make it any less incendiary than something like a flyer from the KKK or Westboro Baptist. The difference is only one of scale when the sentiment behind it is similar and hateful.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Anyone taking these metaphorical statements as serious advice is completely wacko.

Wacko ... like the guy who shot up 15 people, including a member of Congress, at a supermarket?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

What he doesn't address, though, is how hurtful mocking and parody can be, and how laughing at it doesn't make it any less incendiary than something like a flyer from the KKK or Westboro Baptist. The difference is only one of scale when the sentiment behind it is similar and hateful.

Can you provide an example as to how mocking and parody of something hateful can be on par with hateful flyers from the KKK or Westboro Baptist? I'm not sure I understand your point here...

[Chongo]

All's fair when it come's to the Left's fave Alaskan



Poster for the afore mentioned movie

[besson3c]

*Sigh* this is an endless loop

Those graphics are unfair, pointing them out and making generalizations along the lines of "your kind deems these as fair and just" is also an unfair generalization, and all of this true when the roles are reversed.

Why the fact that there are examples of this on both sides seems surprising and worth pointing out is beyond me. If you really want to think that "your people" (whomever they are) prostitute gold, feel free, but you are deluding yourself.

[SpaceMonkey]

Side A complains about some aspect of Side B.
Side B takes it to mean that Side A thinks its sh*t don't stink, complains about Side A.
Side A takes it to mean that Side B thinks its sh*t don't stink.
Repeat.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Side A complains about some aspect of Side B.
Side B takes it to mean that Side A thinks its sh*t don't stink, complains about Side A.
Side A takes it to mean that Side B thinks its sh*t don't stink.
Repeat.

You forgot the part about the politicians and pundits laughing all the way to the bank.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wacko ... like the guy who shot up 15 people, including a member of Congress, at a supermarket?

Yes.

Short list of things we'll need to "tone-down" to ensure we're not cultivating the violence of crazy people:

• All violent video games.
• All violent movies.
• All violent music or Depeche Mode, Counting Crows, and the Goo Goo Dolls.
• Relationship problems like girlfriends breaking up with you.
• Angry fathers
• Authority of any kind/accountability
• responsibility
• failure
• poor service at restaurants
• bad weather/gloomy/cold/rainy days
• political rhetoric

[hyteckit]

Another anti-government tea party nutjob who's a fan of Alex Jone's infowars.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Another anti-government tea party nutjob who's a fan of Alex Jone's infowars.

you forgot, Mein Kampf/ Communist Manifesto loving, goth wannabe, voodoo practicing, dope smoking....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes.

Short list of things we'll need to "tone-down" to ensure we're not cultivating the violence of crazy people:

• All violent video games.
• All violent movies.
• All violent music or Depeche Mode, Counting Crows, and the Goo Goo Dolls.
• Relationship problems like girlfriends breaking up with you.
• Angry fathers
• Authority of any kind/accountability
• responsibility
• failure
• poor service at restaurants
• bad weather/gloomy/cold/rainy days
• political rhetoric

Sponge Bob Square Pants annoys the shit out of me.

However, I think I'm not likely to do anything violent because I watched a lot of Care Bears when I was younger. The worst you might see me do is Care Bear Stare somebody's ass.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

you forgot, Mein Kampf/ Communist Manifesto loving, goth wannabe, voodoo practicing, dope smoking....

Are you talking about Doofy?

Can't goth wannabe, voodoo practicing, dope smoking independents be part of the tea party?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Sigh* this is an endless loop

Those graphics are unfair, pointing them out and making generalizations along the lines of "your kind deems these as fair and just" is also an unfair generalization, and all of this true when the roles are reversed.

Why the fact that there are examples of this on both sides seems surprising and worth pointing out is beyond me. If you really want to think that "your people" (whomever they are) prostitute gold, feel free, but you are deluding yourself.

I think that the record shows that it's one side that is making the most hay about this type of political rhetoric, but not practicing what it preaches. The right really didn't have a problem with Obama using violent gun imagery when he spoke against his opponents. The right also didn't make that big an issue of the Dems using shooting bullseyes as part of their campaign rhetoric.

These examples are brought up to show that one side IS engaging in reactionary hypocrisy, while both sides could use to tone down ALL the negative rhetoric. In other words, the more the left tries to pin this on innocent victims, the more loony it appears. Again, it would be better for the Democrat base to just keep it's mouth shut and not go off half cocked than to lose more potential voters by engaging in some really spectacularly out of touch blame shifting.

[besson3c]

So the solution is to ratchet things up in complaining about one side until they have no choice but to do something? Haven't we learned that this almost always leads to more bouncing back and forth of "oh yeah, but you did ___ you hypocrite"?

Whatever happened to being a quiet example?