I’m glad to see the Associated Press’ Charles Babington T issuing this warning about “rhetoric”…:
Politicians of all stripes are bound to be haunted by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ warning, 10 months before she was shot, to cool the rhetoric.
It’s been a year or more of raw politics, with anger spilling over on both sides and gun-related metaphors coming loosely from the lips of some candidates and activists.
…after this nation sat through eight years of “Chimpy McBusHitler” and “time to secede from Jesusland” and “If (pick your candidate wins) we’re moving to (socialist utopia) and “Screw ’em” and “God D*mn The USA” and “I think I’ve got the ‘nads for a revolution” and “I hope Tony Snow died a painful death“, and this…:
(oh, this is SO much more benign that Sarah Palin's "targets", isn't it?)
…and…
…oh, what’s the point?
Well, the point is that everyone gets their knickers in a spin over the other guy’s rhetoric.
Did Michele Bachmann’s “rhetoric” cause someone to kill Bill Sparkman – to pick just one example of the left’s chattering heads like the loathsome and incompetent Paul Krugman jumping to an unwarranted but pre-written conclusion? No, he killed himself. But one is bidden to wonder whose rhetoric it was that caused Mr. Sparkman to choose to as his last act on his earth to slander “anti-government” protesters?
Mr. Loughton’s mind was pretty clearly gone over the edge. I’m no shrink, but if he didn’t have some sort of dissociative disorder, I’ll eat my hat (rhetorically speaking). Now, the insane and the not-very-bright do tend to be drawn to one political extreme or another. To listen to the caterwauling of the left, the right – and only the right – needs to watch it’s rhetoric so that…
…so that the insane don’t get the wrong idea?
I’m still unclear on what it is they’re looking for, besides trying to slander and/or shut up the right.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” -Obama
“Don’t retreat, reload” -Palin
One of these is violent rhetoric, but only one. You can tell which one is violent rhetoric by identifying the phrase said by the person liberals like and the phrase said by the person that liberals dislike.
Other than that it is impossible to tell the difference.
Remember Paul Krugman’s outrage when this movie was released in 2006?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWOWyHWj6M
Neither do I.
From the few profiles available of the shooter online, it’s apparent he’s one of those kids that scares the hell out of everyone – unstable, disruptive and certifiably psycho. Is it possible to account for these types before they do something psychotic? The community college he went to dispatched campus police to tell him he wasn’t allowed back into school until a shrink approved it.
How do you account for “crazy?”
The lamestream is quietly reporting that this loon’s political bent is “left of center.” I haven’t seen the Red Star today, but their story is supposedly buried on page 6A.
I’m seeing a few glimmers of light. Two of Salon’s writers have written short essays telling their readers to back off on the Tea Party/Palin accusations. Their commenters have attacked them for this almost as though the writers were Tea Partiers themselves.
Can you blame them? For years Salon has been feeding their readers every cockamamie story imaginable about “right wing violence” while ignoring or excusing violent acts and speech from the left. No wonder these idiots feel betrayed.
I see liberals now trying to claim that bulls eyes are different then cross hairs (not to the military) but the most hypocritical part of the map above is the phrase ‘behind enemy lines’.
That isn’t just a phrase, but rather a specific condition that a military unit operates under. Behind enemy lines means you are surrounded by the enemy, and thus free to attack in any direction. It also means you have a different ROE (rules of engagement) or how you conduct yourself. Sherman’s March to the Sea and the Airborne drop over Normandy are examples of being behind enemy lines.
Not to mention the simple fact that labeling someone your ‘enemy’ because they disagree with you politically is hypocritical to start with.
Inflammatory rhetorical stylist, thy name is angryclown.
Well, Big, I think we can all agree that de-institutionalization has probably gone too far. Right now, even if a family member calls concerned about the behavior of someone with diagnosed psychosis it’s extremely difficult to get someone institutionalized even short term.
Doggie Dimwhit to go off on a rant that funding was cut by eeeeeeevil Republicans, eliminating mental health institutions that would have prevented this tragedy in 3…2…1…
It also appears this idiot is a pothead. More fodder for libertarians and progressives to decriminalize maryjane.
I am off to buy hi-cap mags before they get outlawed. But I am sure pot will be coming to you nearest grocery store in short order.
It’s like the Target thing last fall. That had nothing to do with homosexual marriage, and this has nothing to do with Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck (directly). It’s just a loony left and MSM trying to silience the opposition.
Today’s St Paul paper has a McClatchy story saying its the Republicans fault.
MGIN, DogPrescottPile is too busy running FACTCHECK on the a story looking for a non-sequitur spin.
His high school classmates refered to him as “a left wing pothead”. Sounds a little like Al Franken.
So if someone takes a for-real shot at Palin tomorrow, we can blame Olbermann?
If anyone rich/wealthy is murdered this year, we can blame the Democrats for their non-stop hatred against the rich.
jpa;
Yea, ya’ better grab some extra magazines, too, while your at it.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy wants to ban hi cap magazines, as part of a new gun control bill that she’s pushing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027986-503544.html
You would think that after the number of times (listed above) a death or tragedy has been blamed on something or someone or some rhetoric or some ideology only to be PROVEN FALSE after the facts came out, that people wouldn’t jump to such conclusions again for fear that their credibility would be ruined.
You would think.
But this is the era of no shame and zero accountability. Not one of the people who have made charges, from Paul Krugman to Eugene Robinson, linking Palin, talk-radio, Tea-Partayers, the right-wing, et al to this tragedy (among others, a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL was murdered!!) to score points for their side will lose their column or their place in the pundocracy.
You’re absolutely correct, Mitch. To assume that the insane and not very bright are always right-wingers is totally inaccurate. It’s also an extreme insult to the insane and not very bright.
Reminds me of the 35W bridge collapse when Nick Coleman, the Left and the Media (PTR) were trying to lynch Tim Pawlenty while there were still bodies in the river.
How long before the likes of Peev, the Dog, St. Paul Tim, and Tick-Rick call for Mitch to change the name of his blog on the grounds that it incites violence among those on the Right?
Hey Chuck, howabout the wealthy GOP state legislator who was robbed, beaten, and left for dead?
On Christmas Day?
In Arizona?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/representative_frank_pratt_ass_1.php
Yet the newspapers were marvelously free of conservative pundits claiming that this was due to the Dem’s ‘hate the Republicans, hate the rich” rhetoric.
Doggie Dimwhit to go off on a rant that funding was cut by eeeeeeevil Republicans, eliminating mental health institutions that would have prevented this tragedy in 3…2…1…
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Dog Bone was thoroughly gutted like a fish when, on this very blog, she implied “conservative violence” literally within an hour or two of the shooting. To her credit, she followed the example of her colleague Peev by skittering away like a cockroach once the narrative is shown to have more holes than a whiffle ball.