Mns wrote:
Not to mention the point that if my side of the aisle does it, it doesn't make yours any less wrong, it just makes everyone wrong.
That's what I'm saying. It's the entire point of the article I pasted here. It's why the writer of said article didn't point to the offending website/group from the other side of the aisle. The point is that everyone is in the wrong for even having this conversation about who is at fault. There's one person at fault, and he's insane.
Mns wrote:
There really isn't a metaphor for putting crosshairs on political districts. If this was indeed caused by some sort of bonkers left-wing website, you'd sure as shit get the same call for people to clam the hell down.
Allow me to ask you the same question: What would people on your side of the aisle if someone killed Bush for justice over war crimes or something and there was a site that was as controversial as the one that Palin put up, calling for the death of Bush?
What do you mean "what if?" That happened. There was a "documentary" that was basically a "Kill Bush" fanatasy (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/ ) and even a book (
http://www.amazon.com/Checkpoint-ebook/ ... 464&sr=8-5 ) along the same lines. You can probably find some people in the media who said writing a book/making a movie about killing a sitting president was inappropriate, but I don't remember the Bush administration doing anything other than ignoring it.
Mns wrote:
However, if he was crazy enough to take everything that people like Beck spew out as literal fact and as events that are occurring right now, he could see himself as protecting the country he loves against facism.
That would be a great argument if there were even a shred of evidence that the man was an adherent to Beck's sideshow antics. There isn't any, just as there isn't any evidence he was a Palin sycophant. It seems to have been automatically assumed by some, straight out of the gate, that 1) this can only have happened because of something someone said, and 2) that someone had to be a Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. The only reason that argument is being made without any evidence linking the man's view to those figures is that this is only about "the rhetoric" so far as it makes it possible to shut down the other guy's rhetoric while continuing with your own invectives.
Your Pal,
Jubber