where is the outrage when a lefty incites violence?

[AZhitman]

I agree with Hemi, Greg; that was weak sauce.

Big surprise there.

Common parlance that has always existed in our political and everyday speech

Blood in the streets? That's common parlance? Whatever. Maybe where Tariq's from, but not here.

When you two can pull your hands out of the front of your pants and quit spanking it to the Alaskan Retard, you'll be quite likely to reply to me saying (as I've said before) that I'm not a Palin supporter. My OP was about someone else, if you hadn't noticed.

Oh, but the case in the OP didn't target specific individuals. I see. I suppose next time it'll be, "well, it wasn't in writing and notarized". Take that weak s*** home.

..and we can't forget “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun” - methinks POTUS watched Scarface and had a couple beers right before that moronic speech.

We've been down this road. The point is this: If we're gonna scream and whine (and sanction people for) violent rhetoric, perhaps we should:

1) Do it to BOTH sides. Not likely to happen, since the Left has been much more guilty of it since Tucson. Maybe they feel "liberated" to quit being pacifists. Maybe they're so frustrated with their lack of solutions, that violence is the only answer. Does "...by any means necessary" ring a bell?

2) Make sure it actually references violence, not targeting a certain political district.

By the way, you're the law student - Look up "incitement to violence" and see which one more closely applies.

[IBCoupe]

Actually, Greg, what I was referring to as "weak sauce" and what I believe was the target of Hemi's response was the dumbass reference you made to "shooting down" proposed legislation.

So, with that clarification in mind, do you want to make your response to me more relevant to what I wrote, or do you just want to fly off the handle again?

Common turns of phrase and appeals to movies do not an "incitement to violence" make. Vague rhetoric is not equivalent to a crosshair over a name, no matter how much you want to keep pretending it is. I don't think anyone who's found themselves in the media has really incited violence, either, and that hasn't been my critique - I've said that it was reckless and stupid. Don't lecture me on the legal definition of "incitement to violence" because that's not even my claim. Take that irrelevant s*** home.

And, really, Greg... "by any means necessary?" What the f***, dude, it's like you've only recently discovered English literature. More weak sauce.

[BusyBadger]

I use those "threatening marks" all the time at work, what's the big deal?



I hear Jesse Jackson is paying our shop a visit because we judge things based on their colour.

[IBCoupe]

[AZhitman]

LOL @ Badge.

I stand behind my entire previous post, IB.

I didn't "fly off the handle"(I've got WAY more capacity for aggravation than you can possibly comprehend - trust me on that), but judging from your rack of asterisks, you're having some real difficulty hanging in there.

I concur 100% on the "reckless and stupid" bit. But that neither absolves nor mitigates the rash of violent rhetoric spewing from the left of late. See, rather than condemning the current spate of hateful jibba-jabba (sorry Jesse), people want to haul Sarah Palin out on a silver platter. Why? That changes NOTHING. Her handlers did something stupid. I get it. BFD. That was then. This is now.

BTW - Just to correct your timeline, I was sitting in Honors English Lit when you were still toting a sippy cup and wearing pull-ups.

Look at you now, all growed-up and handsome and married and going to law school - I'm all verklempt.

[audtatious]

Give him 10 years or so for real life to start hitting him, it was surely an eye opener for me those many years ago. He's still wet behind the ears.

[IBCoupe]

f*** your condescension; especially you, Aud. Make an argument or GTFO.

I concur 100% on the "reckless and stupid" bit. But that neither absolves nor mitigates the rash of violent rhetoric spewing from the left of late. See, rather than condemning the current spate of hateful jibba-jabba (sorry Jesse), people want to haul Sarah Palin out on a silver platter. Why? That changes NOTHING. Her handlers did something stupid. I get it. BFD. That was then. This is now.

As of late? So far, I've seen two (count 'em, two!) incidents - one blatantly inappropriate statement from a random guy with a sign and another less inappropriate statement from a Massachusetts Rep who promptly apologized. What else is "now," Greg?

[AZhitman]

So far, I've seen....

Ah. Not having seen is different from didn't happen.

See, a a comparison, I never saw the Palin piece. Most didn't (I know, I've heard that I'm the only person in the US who didn't see it ).

Suffice it to say, there have been more. The "apology" carries a lot less weight with me than it did with you (which is fine, I'm not real forgiving, and I believe most people only apologize because they get called out, not because they're sorry...).

Bottom line? Collossally-ignorant thing to say.

[AZhitman]

...more lefty wackos (threats, assaults, psychotic behavior, more threats... Yeah, I wanna join THIS group):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaiyD3HXH0s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3agi6Y8xr0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANPk_vBFEM[/youtube]

Not isolated to Wisconsin... In New Jersey, union thugs interviewed offered to give Chris Christie a “fistie” (whatever the hell that is) and called him a "dictator" and a "terrorlst"... LOL.

Death threats: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... th-threats

I think I already posted the video of the fat bum assaulting Tabitha Hale of Freedom Works.

In Atlanta (Moveon rally), a Union protestor goes INTO a crowd of demonstrators and shoves someone, then the police escort him away - but he's not arrested. They were PROTECTING the aggressor.

In CA, at least this guy got cited: http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/2011/0 ... zed-rally/

Some Wisconsin-related propaganda (feel free to debunk it, I'm not THAT interested.. ):
http://www.soopermexican.com/2011/02/27 ... factsheet/

[AppleBonker]

Lulz. Greg, I saw all of those clips on O'Reilly last night. I laughed hard. Then again, that was just Fox finding random psychos on the street and interviewing them. I'd follow their political suggestions just as readily as the dude I saw skateboarding (video on TV) that cracked the board in half and racked himself hard on a rail...

Where are the people of "power" on the left spewing violent rhetoric? I haven't even seen reports on Fox about it yet...

[Cold_Zero]

Unfortunately, the real political violence is not found in Wisconsin or Indiana, but Libya and Bahrain. I have been a part of enough political rallies, most of them Tea Party protests to know that most of the time they are pretty peaceful events and that detractors are always looking for something to play the game, ‘gotcha.’

[audtatious]

Lulz. Greg, I saw all of those clips on O'Reilly last night. I laughed hard. Then again, that was just Fox finding random psychos on the street and interviewing them. I'd follow their political suggestions just as readily as the dude I saw skateboarding (video on TV) that cracked the board in half and racked himself hard on a rail...

Where are the people of "power" on the left spewing violent rhetoric? I haven't even seen reports on Fox about it yet...

Yet it took far less than a protester being violent to label the Tea Party as violent and racist.

[AppleBonker]

So the right thinks these union protesters are violent and the left thinks the Tea Party is violent and racist. I'm getting that part right, yes? But I think the argument is that it is different when people of "power" (regardless of them deserving said power) use "violent rhetoric" it is different than random people on the street. Or am I missing something?

[IBCoupe]

Lulz. Greg, I saw all of those clips on O'Reilly last night. I laughed hard. Then again, that was just Fox finding random psychos on the street and interviewing them. I'd follow their political suggestions just as readily as the dude I saw skateboarding (video on TV) that cracked the board in half and racked himself hard on a rail...

Where are the people of "power" on the left spewing violent rhetoric? I haven't even seen reports on Fox about it yet...

This. It's like you're ignoring everything I write, Greg, and supplanting your own imagination for what I might have written, instead.

[AZhitman]

Ah, ok.

So, because they have no "power", it's ok. Got it.

p.s. Sarah Palin has no power. Jussayin'.

[AZhitman]

More: Wisconsin Democrat State Rep. Gordon Hintz's threatening Rep. Michelle Litjens.

He's no candidate for VP, tho.

p.s. Look it up yourself.

[IBCoupe]

"Democratic," and I will.

[IBCoupe]

I kinda want to know why he said it, but hey, there's the outrage.

[AZhitman]

Maybe she rebuffed his sexual advances.

[AppleBonker]

She's apparently claiming he told her he snapped after a long night debating (he called to apologize, though only after the media picked up the story)? So he said "you're f*cking dead!" which seems like a powerful statement to me. I've snapped and said similar before, though it was almost certainly after imbibing a large quantity of alcohol. I certainly can't condone it, and from a person in that position, it is completely unacceptable.

[IBCoupe]

Agreed, but it's not quite a parallel yet to the kind of violence-implying propaganda that started this whole debate.

[audtatious]

So the right thinks these union protesters are violent and the left thinks the Tea Party is violent and racist. I'm getting that part right, yes? But I think the argument is that it is different when people of "power" (regardless of them deserving said power) use "violent rhetoric" it is different than random people on the street. Or am I missing something?

Now, assuming we all blame others for our own actions:

IF, Palin is a "power" and she intentionally used a sniper mark to target people for violence then, yes, her rhetoric is horrific and deserved the 1-2 weeks worth of bashing by the main news agencies and newspapers. If she used it, or a surveyors mark/whatever, with no intention that there would be violence but someone used it as a cue to enact violence for her, then maybe she deserves some bashing for "shoulda known better". If said violence had nothing at all to do with her or her "target" then she didn't deserve said bashing and rhetoric from the Dems/Media/News.

So, which one is it? I know, she deserves it because she's a Republican, the media love to poke fun at her and it makes the Dems happy to make something out of nothing.

I surely have seen 1/100th of the issue with what Dems have said from a "blood on the streets" perspective...because they apologized?

Comic GOLD

[IBCoupe]

I'm in the "shoulda known better" camp, even if the violence had nothing to do with it.

The fact that we're seeing it as a possibility kinda suggests to me that she should have known better. Palin's not a power now, but she was a bit more of a power figure back when the thing was made. She was Newt Gingrich with boobs.

[audtatious]

Maybe so, I don't disagree with that. I do get tired of others getting the blame for another persons actions.

after edit: BUT, it was made quite a while ago and not something that influenced the happenings. Now that everyone "public" is going to be responsible for their actions then they should all be kicked out of office for their "violent rhetoric" and actions....like Indiana kicked their Republican to the curb.

[IBCoupe]

I get tired of Sarah Palin, and of the fact that too few people also are. I need a vacation.

[audtatious]

She's constantly pulled up by media and politicians. I hope she doesn't run because that will be FAIL city. Yes, she has the capability of possibly setting a course to fix our budget issues as a fiscal Conservative. Unfortunately, the left will refuse to work with her at all and nothing will get done. There has been too much anti-Palin rhetoric used these last 3 years for her to ever get a clean break for a real run at President. She's "labeled" as tainted goods regardless of it being true or not. People would vote for her if she ran on a separate ticket though and that's only good for Obama.

[IBCoupe]

Two things could happen that would make me very happy:

President Obama wins reelection, the Right could stop pretending that he's a lefty, and recognize that he hasn't really been running to the center these past few months because he was there all along, and we actually have a functioning government after 2012.

-OR-

The Right nominates someone like John McCain was before he was the nominee, and that candidate doesn't become like John McCain did after he was the nominee, and then we get a functioning government after 2012.

[audtatious]

So, either a lefty as Obama is viewed today or a RINO like John McCain "used to be"?

We are screwed both ways.

[AZhitman]

I'm in the "shoulda known better" camp, even if the violence had nothing to do with it.

I can get with that. Know why? It's rational.

She was Newt Gingrich with boobs.

You, good sir, can commence to crawling up your own arse and dying, for that particular mental image.

[AZhitman]

President Obama sheds the bunch of hypocritical ne'er-do-wells and carpetbagging Progtards that have been hanging off him like leeches on a water buffalo's ballsack since the first election (I'm looking at you, Reid / Pelosi / Frank et al), he wins reelection, the Right could stop pretending that he's a lefty, and recognize that he hasn't really been running to the center these past few months because he was there all along, and we actually have a functioning government after 2012.

FTFY.

And I could get behind that as well.