Ok so we knew there weren't going to be any apologies

[walldude]

I mean apologize for being an asshole? For having no morals? A right winger? Admit that they might have been over the top? Tone it down? Are you kidding me? I personally might call that kind of hate speech criminal, others might say it's irresponsible, I think we can all agree that it is in bad taste.

All of us except the right wingers. They have a solution to this issue. Wanna hear it?

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

You see it's not that they are playing games with words, it's not that they are using violent rhetoric. It's not that they want to kill all the liberals. It's not that they are trying to wind up a volatile base, It's not that both sides are doing it. It's the fact that YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

SO STOP IT ALREADY. YOU WANT TO MAKE THE PROBLEM GO AWAY? STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. THE LIBERAL LEFT IS COMPLICIT IN THIS IN THAT THEY KEEP BRINGING IT UP. IF WE WOULD JUST STOP IT THE RIGHT WING COULD GO ON WITH THEIR INSANE RANTINGS WITHOUT ANYONE GETTING IN THEIR WAY.

Sheesh, what's wrong with you people.

[kevinbgoode]

1. I think I've found a few little kinks. . .

I've noticed that they get all silent when I patiently start to ask them why they are so defensive about this situation. . .and then ask them what is so different about Loughner, who clearly indicated he viewed the federal government as a tyranny, and their own rhetorical behavior. And then I ask them if he was merely mentally disturbed because he ACTED on their rhetoric, while they are clearly sane because they only TALK about killing? I then ask them to reasonably explain where the lines are drawn. . .to show us where their rhetoric is so different from the reasons contained in this guy's videos.

And then I ask them if he, despite being mentally disturbed, believed he needed to invoke his Second Amendment "remedies," then why are they so bothered? Isn't that what they've been telling the nation over and over and over and over again? Is the difference that it is only legit if a group of conservatives decide the federal government is tyranny, and was Loughner not allowed that same right?

I really try to break it down as simply as possible - and the only defense I got from the Right was a claim that I was "defending the mass murderer" and how disgusting it all was. My response was that no one was defending him - but I just didn't understand why the Right was running away so fast from someone who appeared to do exactly what they keep threatening to do.

And this was the punch that seemed to penetrate. I said. .. well, I get it now. Right wing rhetoric really isn't serious - it's just entertainment. So perhaps the best thing we are learning from this situation is that nothing conservatives say - none of those theatrical demonstrations and bullying threats - are anything but political theater. Because conservatives are upstanding citizens who would never do anything like that, and now we have learned that if they did, they'd be mentally unstable, not patriots.

So this leaves the Right in quite a pickle. They can't claim anything but either the guy was a "liberal" - which isn't working - or "mentally disturbed." And if the latter is the case, then it seems like the Right is going to waste its time in the future ever bothering with their own vitriolic rhetoric. . .because now we know they are really just paper tigers, and it doesn't really mean anything because it had absolutely no meaning or possible influence on this mentally unbalanced person assaulting a political target. And since we know that conservatives can't possibly ever do something like that themselves, it doesn't leave them much reason to even bother engaging in the rhetoric because it won't scare or bully anyone any longer...it will only make them look mentally unbalanced.

I hope this makes some sense. . .

[Bandit]

2. I keep waiting for Senator Inhofe to be "Outraged at the Outrage"

Any time now I bet.....:shrug: