Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm dumb enough now that, when a crazy muslim walks into a church carrying bombs, I don't blame the imams who are screaming "kill the infidel!" After all, there are crazy people on both sides, and crazy people do crazy things. The fact that important and prominent people are telling them that they should do crazy things really doesn't figure into it. And people with positions of power and responsibility really don't have any obligation to think about how their words might incite people.



Kidding! I'm not that dumb. But you are.

Bullseye!*

BTW, we need a "block" rather than an "ignore" function, so the next time Hank ignores us, we can make sure he really does.


* And I mean this entirely in a surveyor's mark kind of way.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm dumb enough now that, when a crazy muslim walks into a church carrying bombs, I don't blame the imams who are screaming "kill the infidel!" After all, there are crazy people on both sides, and crazy people do crazy things. The fact that important and prominent people are telling them that they should do crazy things really doesn't figure into it. And people with positions of power and responsibility really don't have any obligation to think about how their words might incite people.



Kidding! I'm not that dumb. But you are.

I do not think Hank said what you seem to think he said.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

via Digby

You missed the election night burning of a church in Springfield, Mass, and the fire-bombing of a pizza place owned by a Muslim just south of Boston. You're also missing the various acts of vandalism and threats during the Affordable Care Act votes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do not think Hank said what you seem to think he said.

You may be right. I probably shouldn't accuse Hank of taking a position.

It's worrisome to see, though, that his delusions about anti-Bush visuals extends beyond the bumper stickers at my house to things he just knows he saw on Google once (has anyone other than me run the search that Hank proposes? It's really laughable, and kind of sad). And worrisome that he can't differentiate between anonymous posts on the internet and statements by a candidate for VP.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You may be right. I probably shouldn't accuse Hank of taking a position.

It's worrisome to see, though, that his delusions about anti-Bush visuals extends beyond the bumper stickers at my house to things he just knows he saw on Google once (has anyone other than me run the search that Hank proposes? It's really laughable, and kind of sad). And worrisome that he can't differentiate between anonymous posts on the internet and statements by a candidate for VP.

There was the "shoot bush" online game that *did* exist and may still.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

There was the "shoot bush" online game that *did* exist and may still.

there were dozens of tragets you could buy. of course, less marketable now that he's gone.

Sidd has become a bad charecature of his former persona, which was a dull-wit knee jerk reactionary.

Sad really.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You may be right. I probably shouldn't accuse Hank of taking a position.

It's worrisome to see, though, that his delusions about anti-Bush visuals extends beyond the bumper stickers at my house to things he just knows he saw on Google once (has anyone other than me run the search that Hank proposes? It's really laughable, and kind of sad). And worrisome that he can't differentiate between anonymous posts on the internet and statements by a candidate for VP.

I get exactly two imagines with a pic of bush and a target on them.

But I also saw Hank say he doesn't "excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets."

Certainly there is no doubt that there is poor behaviour on both sides. But let's let Hank actually say that the conduct has been equivalent before question his intellect on the assumption that he is thinking it.

Personally, if he is thinking that, I' betting he will read a bit about it first and rethink yet another ingrained position.

ETA: One more for good measure.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

There was the "shoot bush" online game that *did* exist and may still.

Was there a shooting one? I remember a shoe throwing one.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Was there a shooting one? I remember a shoe throwing one.

Maybe that's it. But "shoot bush" does pop up a number of game links that I can't see if they are GWB or a different bush. In any event, I do not recall anything that involved, say, massive head trauma, as the result of the shooting.

And, of course, it's possible to get gun range targets with just about anyone on them, but you can't blame that on the left, bc we all know that the kooky left is virulently anti-gun, right?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Personally, if he is thinking that, I' betting he will read a bit about it first and rethink yet another ingrained position.

ETA: One more for good measure.

What does LGF* say about it? Because what the anti-righties say is an "of course they do" thing.

*Hank likes him, so...

eta: Seems that Charles thinks the RW has a violent rhetoric problem.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

What does LGF* say about it? Because what the anti-righties say is an "of course they do" thing.

*Hank likes him, so...

I don't see directly on-point post, but these come pretty close.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't see directly on-point post, but these come pretty close.

I really think:

As the right wing blogs and pundits desperately try to spin away any responsibility for the violent rhetoric flowing from their side of the political aisle, here are a few Tea Party photos from the LGF archives to remind them why people were concerned, long before today’s mass murder in Arizona.

is directly on point.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there were dozens of tragets you could buy. of course, less marketable now that he's gone.

It's nice to know that people are constantly editing the Internet so that none of these show up on a Google search today.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I get exactly two imagines with a pic of bush and a target on them.

But I also saw Hank say he doesn't "excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets."

Certainly there is no doubt that there is poor behaviour on both sides. But let's let Hank actually say that the conduct has been equivalent before question his intellect on the assumption that he is thinking it.

Personally, if he is thinking that, I' betting he will read a bit about it first and rethink yet another ingrained position.

ETA: One more for good measure.

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.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

google image search "George Bush Target". although there seem to be fewer now that he is out. (and by that 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)

Here is Taibbi reflecting on his own part in amping up the rhetoric. And Packer doing something similar.

Is there any corresponding introspection on the Right, Hank?