Not at all. All I know is some of what he said, and what he then did. If you think these are unrelated to each other, the burden of proof falls to you, as Ludovic suggested.
Of course. I was speaking of political figures who are attacked for being political figures. I thought that was clear. (In this case, it appears that Judge Roll, though a political figure in his own right, was not assassinated.)
Loughner’s writings (online and personal) referenced recognizable political concepts, even if incoherently. He named a specific political figure, who he did not know in any other context. Then he attempted to kill that person. This may be crazy, but it is not random.
IIRC, the Bush movie was done in Britain - so not only do we not nominate our wackos, we exile them!
However, as I understand it the movie was an examination of what would happen after an assassination, and not a call to assassinate anyone, so it isn’t even a good example.
The only *book *I could find about the assassination of Bush was Checkpoint, wherein two characters spend much of the book discussing how they’d kill the President through cartoonish violence (such as “Manchurian scorpions”)… and never, you know, actually go through with it.
Personally, I’m a little unclear how this book, and the movie you mentioned, indicate Liberal violence against a Republican President, but I’m sure friend **Yorick **will be along any minute now to lay it out on the big chalkboard.
… any minute now.
Both parties use violent and hateful imagery. The Republicans (and fellow travelers to the right of the Republicans) have done it much more in the past two years than the left has.
But during the Bush years, the Democrats (and fellow travelers to the left of the mainstream Democrats) were the stronger purveyors of hate-filled rhetoric.
The usual response to this is that Bush deserved it, and thus it’s excusable.
Did that art film stir up Democrats, or anyone else, into any kind of kill Bush frenzy? Did they start parading around the White House with guns? Did they go to Bush events with guns?
And, though people have been trying to get this through to you for quite a while, the map by itself would be insignificant. It is significant as a piece of a larger and quite intended strategy to work up the rabble
Do you think Palin (and the others, but she is the most visible) has a moral obligation to try to tone down the rhetoric, or should she just keep on denying that she had any part in the overheated atmosphere we have today?
Their memberships may not be exclusively haters, but those groups attract the haters. The Republicans court those groups, which are based on hatred ideology.
Please give some examples from leaders of the Democratic party? “Bush lied, people died” does not qualify IMO.
During the Clinton years there was plenty of violent rhetoric from militias and the like, in one form or another, but actual political leaders neither encouraged it or fanned it, as far as I can recall. So let’s not use some wacko bloggers as examples either. Those will exist on both sides, and are regrettable but can be marginalized.
Arguably a hate group, but the focus of the interaction has been on legal issues like same-sex marriage. Now, you may simply choose to define opposition to same-sex marriage as hate, but that’s not a definition I accept.
I deny the Republicans have courted “anti-Muslim” groups or campaigns.
As I stated, these groups are based on an ideology of hatred, they have more than just random members who are haters. I forgot to mention militias in the list, and I’m sure there are other examples.
Did they encourage people to go to Presidential events with guns? Looks like. And there appears to be quite a frenzy, even if it has been limited to vandalism so far.
I’ll ask you also: do you think, given what has happened, Palin has a moral obligation to try to tone down the rhetoric? McCain, if you remember, actually said that the opposition should be treated with respect. Or should she keep denying that her words could possibly have an impact?
I love how the rules keep changing. The previous poster seeks to tar and efather the Republicans because they court groups that, according to him, spew hatred.
You seek to limit the inquiry to leaders of the Demoratic party.
Which is it?
And Sarah Palin is a former, failed VP candidate. She holds no leadership position in the Republican party.
You seem to have omitted the word “violent” from your charge of Democrat rhetoric. Intentional or an oversight?
In any event, I would welcome some specific examples of Dem action during the Bush admin that you consider the equal of what you acknowledge Rpubs have done recently.
