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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

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.

That does not say "and the left doesn't do the same thing." But yeah.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

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?

Well, I think there are some. It's a bit startling for Pat Buchanan to opine that things have gone too far, particularly given his piece-of-shit 1992 culture war rant, but still.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Well, I think there are some. It's a bit startling for Pat Buchanan to opine that things have gone too far, particularly given his piece-of-shit 1992 culture war rant, but still.

Um, that's a lawyer answer to a lawyer question:

Joe: "if you were working for Sarah Palin right now, saying, go out and say it had nothing to do with this shooting, but you understand that it was irresponsible, and you’re going to be more careful moving forward. Wouldn’t you give her that advice if you were her aide?"

Pat [paraphrased]: "What do you think I am, stupid? Assuming she wants to run for President, of course that's what I would recommend she do. I'm still a viable adviser, really I am."

And that ignores that Buchanan has been brought to the middle on many. many issue with the emergence of others.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Well, I think there are some. It's a bit startling for Pat Buchanan to opine that things have gone too far, particularly given his piece-of-shit 1992 culture war rant, but still.

Pat Buchanan has surprised me a few times in recent years.

Still, that 1992 speech.... Molly Ivins nailed that one -- "I preferred it in the original German."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

Ban violent metaphors. That is the only solution.

Oh... We can't? Well, then I'll guess we'll just have to do what we're doing: Discuss whether the Right goes too far with violent imagery, while it continues to use such imagery.

This debate goes nowhere.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

Relatedly, Glenn Beck is weird. From his website:

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Relatedly, Glenn Beck is weird. From his website:

According to Charles Johnson, he's deleted that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ban violent metaphors. That is the only solution.

I said nothing of the sort, and would gently request that you ease your head from your rectum. With lube, if need be.

Oh... We can't? Well, then I'll guess we'll just have to do what we're doing: Discuss whether the Right goes too far with violent imagery, while it continues to use such imagery.

This debate goes nowhere.

What debate on this board goes anywhere?

I would like to see people acknowledge reality. I like to push back against stupidity and dishonesty, and this "you do it, we do it, everyone does it and it just doesn't matter" crap is among the worst kind.

[Hank Chinaski]

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...

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

Summer of 2008 LGF did a 180 turn and is anti-extreme-right

[Hank Chinaski]

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)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Summer of 2008 LGF did a 180 turn and is anti-extreme-right

Feel free to name someone else you would like to hear from that might convince you that extreme violet rhetoric isn't evenly distributed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Feel free to name someone else you would like to hear from that might convince you that extreme violet rhetoric isn't evenly distributed.

can you first out my strongly held opinion that oxygen isn't necessary for life?

seriously, you get paid to be a lawyer? GGG and Sidd aren't trying with the shit they post, or more accurately they are trying to stir shit, but you seem sincere. do you really read as poorly as it seems?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Summer of 2008 LGF did a 180 turn and is anti-extreme-right

Well, I was mincing my words bc Sullivan isn't really a lefty, but how 'bout:

"we can ignore Adder's cites b/c lefties will say anything", let's turn to someone who isn't a lefty, like LGF.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

** 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)

Obviously everyone should be toning things down. Those in the media won't, for the reasons Taibbi explained. We'll see what the politicians do.

But while we don't know in detail Loughner's political views, or for that matter whether he has any coherent political ideology, there is one undisputable data point: he planned and sought to carry out the assassination of a Dems congressperson.

Perhaps he fixated on her for non-political reasons, or his hatred came from farther left than her, but in the absence of evidence, I think it a stretch to suggest that either scenario is the more likely. And of course, we may get to find out in the course of a trial.

But I haven't heard anyone say that he set out to kill Judge Roll.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

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?

Taibbi: "Is it ever right to just wind up and let someone have it with all you've got?"

Not only is it right, but I'd say it's something sadly lacking in our culture. Something deeply lacking on the part of decent moderates, and rational, sensible people.

The allowances we make for outright bulllshit, lies and spin are part of what's driven us into a ditch. We've a nation filled with infants because we won't treat them as adults. We'll let the pathetic fucks believe they can have tax cuts, health care expansion, easy credit and the books will magically balance. We'll placate them with shit like reality television. Nobody calls out all the corrosive shit in our culture or blasts the charlatans. We're all afraid. Those who could don't because it would hurt our business connections... Because most of us earn some money from some of the most corrosive forces.

The population can't absorb well-though out, surgical, brutal critiques. They'd prefer slogans - tea party horseshit, DailyKos liberal bromides. They want narratives. They want to "believe," not think. And the smart of us, knowing these dumb wretches can't live in grey areas - see that as "moral relativism" - sell them one-sided news that appeals to their biases. And corporations gladly line up behind the media to fund the spoonfeeding.

Could a strident moderate get a following? Hell no. Taibbi even realized this himself. Years ago he was more Libertarian than Liberal. Then he realized, like any smart firebrand needs to in this Idiocracy, that he had to pick a side. He trended Liberal. Good for him. He's made a few bucks at it. But I've no doubt, based on what I know of him, it probably bugs the guy a little that he can't be more centrist. That to sell in America one has to pick a fucking tribe.

We get what we deserve. Frankly, given the level of political intellect in the mind of the average American, we deserve a lot worse than even this. The meanest irony here is this woman was a decent moderate, and from all I've read on her, among the independent thinkers we need more of in the Capitol... one of the few politicians who didn't contribute to the atmosphere that causes this type of shit.