Hey look that guy that shot the Arkansas Democrat was a freaking LIBERAL
Sorry jason, you have to eat your words….
man, talk about screwing up a post…read this one for the sarcastic looks like he was a liberal after all
h/t suburban guerrilla
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
“the real haters in America are on the far left”
I should have trusted Bill O. He is always right about how bad liberals are as a group. Infact, the more I think about how on the mark O’Rielly is, the more I think that liberals should all be shot.
I don’t get it. The linked article says right off that the motive in the Arkansas shooting was a mystery, and links to an article that states the same. Then, the firedog article states that it’s
but doesn’t offer any evidence whatsoever to back it up…
DV must be drunk.
God, DV no more blogging when a can of Bush at your side and wearing a wife-beater.
you don’t go to the FDL site Joe. continue reading the site I linked too…
scroll
nemski,
not drinking at all
“Traitors, be afraid. Be very afraid.”
Ooooo…tough words from the “wish I was there with my .38 so I could be the hero and someone, anyone, would then have to fuck me” crowd.
If you’re really want to talk about traitors, talk about Dixie.
Well, I did read the FDL article all the way through. It talks about the Arkansas guy, says the motive is a mystery, assumes it was right-wing hate. Then it moves to the UU shooter and the evidence that he was reading rw books, then it notes hate messages at right-wing sites.
It never linked the Arkansas shooter to the right-wing sites, though it did the UU shooter.
DV,
Where in this article does it say the Arkansas shooter was a liberal? That is your point, right?
I think you have to eat your words.
As I’ve said before, his political affiliations are irrelevant.
That’s not always true, Mike. Especially when the murderer states his political leanings as the reason for his killing.
I’m referring to the UU killer.
UU killer
Now that’s an oxymoron.
Well, I meant the guy that killed the UU folks, but I guess it wasn’t the best way to shorthand it…
Where in this article does it say the Arkansas shooter was a liberal? That is your point, right?
sarcasm DD…
crud…I linked to the wrong site…shit!
sorry JOE M…my bad
From Orcinus (your source):
If it turns out that Timothy Johnson was mentally disturbed, that fact hardly exonerates the people who have constantly demonized Democrats as the root of all evil over the past two decades. On the contrary, it only underscores the gross irresponsibility of this rhetoric — and stands as one of the important reasons why this kind of talk has to stop.
And if you read Niewert for long, you’ll discover he wants this talk stopped through government action….
Aside from the fact that Niewert has made a virtual cottage industry out of coining eliminationist as a term (based on a multiple chapter mangling of at least 1,000 years of world and American history that he never finished because it became too mentally fragmented to connect to the present)….
Niewert reverses the traditional opinion of the First Amendment (“I may not like what you say, but I defend your right to say it”) into “If what you say incites the mentally ill, it is no longer protected speech.”
Somehow (ducking) I don’t expect this will be an incredibly well-received comment
No need to duck. What bothers me the most about these shootings is the constant theme – liberals are the problem and must be dealt with.
I am not dismissing the mental illness or the individual’s responsibility, but the presence of hate talk attached to these shooters should not be ignored. Just like the phrase “going postal” came about for a reason when it obviously didn’t apply to all postal workers… but it applied to enough to coin a phrase.
Ah, it all makes sense now, DBB.
Don’t sweat it, man, I’ve made my own stupid mistakes. In fact, this one was far worse than yours. Real amateur of me!
(Check the update for my stupidity)
The difference is that nobody seriously considered government action against all postal workers.
Coining a phrase is different from moving toward a weakening of the First Amendment.
The constant theme of liberals as the problem also bothers me, and there is another part of that I want to explore, Pandora, but I’ve got to go do some research first.
Steve, I don’t support Government action. How about a little consciousness raising… starting on right-wing radio.
This summer I had a neighbor at the beach tell my children that Obama wants to kill babies and that he’s not a Christain. This stemmed from an Obama bumper sticker on my car. My kids (ages 14 and 11) were not discussing politics – as if! – they were riding their bikes.
Now… should I be concerned about this? An adult berating children for their parents’ political choice? And this is just one incident, I’ve personally experienced, what I’d consider, a massive over-reaction from conservatives. Again, not all conservatives, but my experiences have been memorable.
Oh, and BTW, normally these erratic incidents flare up out of the blue. Meaning we were not discussing politics.
The problem is that social consciousness makes for bad TV, Pandora. These people on both sides that completely vilify the other are the ones who create this problem, and they won’t stop until it stops making money for their news corps.
I don’t think it’s too far gone to imagine that sometime soon, we my see some Olbermann fanatic trying to wipe the earth of some of the conservative scourge.
The fact is that people who are prone to these acts of violence will take any reason they can find to act on it. Think of it:
A man (they normally are) watches MSNBC exclusively. Hears of all the tragedies, misconceptions, and outright deceptions of the right. He knows that the left is against guns, but delights in the irony of using the rights weapons against them…
Some people are just ticking time-bombs, and if they don’t find their justification on Fox, then they will on MSNBC, or at church, or from a PAC. The answer is to not make monsters of the opposition. Even if they find their justification elsewhere, at least it won’t be because of political reasons, or religious, or whatever.
I am totally buying a gun now…
Agreed, Joe. And I’ll be the first to condemn the action of a mentally disturbed Olberman/liberal fan… If it happens.
LG, having met you and hung out a couple of times, I just can’t see you having enough rage. I could see you mocking someone to death, but not a gun.
Pandora, if enough hate against a group, even if it is the right-wing, gets put out there, some crazy fuck will use it as justification. Now, after these two brutal acts, that crazy fuck on the left has that much more justification. Once someone in authority puts it out there that their group is “better”, more patriotic, more moral, more ethical and demonizes the “other”, the ammo is out there for violence. It is bound to happen. Mark my words.
PS: I’ve always wanted to say “Mark my words”. Thanks, DE Lib, for the opportunity.
Your welcome!
Oooohhh! I like that. I’ll mock you to death.
Consider yourself “mocked” for death.
Ooh, you’re going mock 10 with the puns!
Don’t mock me hurt you!
Ok, I’m done now. I don’t want to end up like lickspittle.
Okay, me too. I’ll just relax with my mocka latte.
“Steve, I don’t support Government action. How about a little consciousness raising… starting on right-wing radio. ”
What they say is provocative and that’s why it sells. If it works (from a capitalist standpoint) I see no reason to change it. Some of the vile crap I hear Olbermann spew is widely popular on the left. I usually choose not to listen to it, but I understand I’m not the target audience.
If one side raises their consciousness the other isn’t going to raise theirs, and if doing so hurts the bottom line why do it?
The question is, how will you get right-wing radio to “raise consciousness” without government intervention?
Family values and morality????
OK Pandora, I promised you a full response
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/08/politically-and-ideologically-motivated.html