Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, please. Hank said "I don't mean to excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets, just to suggest that at least parts of both sides that might be behaving badly." Everything in that statement, and everything about what Hank has been posting on this board for years, indicated that he was trying to equate "both sides."
If you had just shown up today and never read a Hank post before, your naivete would be cute. But be real.
The rhetoric on the left and the right have not been anywhere near the same. Once again -- ad nauseum, since that's the only way to talk about anything hank-related -- we are not talking about anonymous (or, more accurately, imaginary) people sporting mean bumper-stickers or posting stuff on the Internet that has since mysteriously vanished. We are talking about party leaders. About elected officials. About key "thought" leaders. About icons of the right wing movement.
If Hank wants to acknowledge the fundamental difference, he should. But he won't, and your belief that he really understands it is, to say the least, misguided.
|
if your point is that since the Dems have been in power the level of rhetoric has been greater by the out of power, I will agree with you.
if your point is that your side* has been squeaky clean I'm afraid that once again I have to disagree** with you.
*and since the Tea party guys aren't my side, I don't have a side in this fight. but for you to think your side is clean is harmful sidd. physician heal thyself!
** and the guy was completely anti-government, meaning it likely that Palin's targets didn't drive him, since she is somehow now theGovernment, and the guy killed a Bush Judge, meaning a lib judge will now get a seat. he was flat out crazy, and anyone arguing anything other that "everyone tone shit down" is a simp (hi GGG)
