From the horse’s mouth:
Yep, if you don’t agree with the law you just kill the people trying to enforce it. This is the slimy, white underbelly of conservative “thought” right now.
It’s been that way for a long time. I recall back in the Clinton years, right wing radio loudmouths talking about “shooting federal agents in the face”, all sorts of threats of violence from the Republican Congressmen on down. They are, ultimately, thugs.
You’re likely thinking of G. Gordon Liddy, celebrated rat gourmand, who advised his listeners to remember that Federal agents wore protective vests, hence “Head shots! Head shots!”.
Meh. Some are crazies, some are not. Certain elements of the GOP have to pander to them as they represent a significant voting bloc that they have a chance of losing (any viable Teaparty candidates in 2010 have a very real chance of shattering the fragile hold that Republicans currently have on political power).
Pointing to some crazies, even some crazies who travel in packs, and using that as a broader metric doesn’t really stand the smell test.
Or yell and swear at the cops.
Both parties are teh same! Vote Republican!
You realize an “F Bomb” is not a real bomb, right?
The delicate sensibilities of New York’s Finest must be taken into account when assessing the gravity of the offense.
Yes, that was the guy.
If you publicly say something as specific as “throw a brick through xyz’s window,” and a bunch of people go through bricks through xyz’s window, is that not some sort of crime, akin to yelling fire in a crowded space? Incitement or something?
At any rate, I don’t think that the “Tea Party” has actually coalesced into an entity, they are an inchoate buzz of anger, enthusiasm, and a new found self-regard. The are a bit like the early hippies in the sense of being largely a creation of the media: the media pay attention to the Tea Partiers which encourage people to become Tea Partiers, then the media pays attention to the people who are Tea Partiers because they told them so.
They only have about fifty non-negotiable demands and the same number of universally accepted principles, only about half of which are mutually exclusive. They don’t yet actually have an agenda, much less an identity, and nothing resembling a leader. Except for Sarah, the Bullwinkle Slayer, and, well, really…
The problem would be proving a causal connection, proving that they didn’t already plan to throw the rocks and that your comment convinced them to do so.
This OP is idiotic and completely devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. You simply picked one conservative and then decided that he speaks for all conservatives with no basis whatsoever. That is an extremely stupid thing to do.
Not quite as stupid as ignoring that he was an invited speaker at a Tea Party guns rally, who was cheered for his comments. 
Moving to the Pit from Great Debates. I’m not seeing an argument here.
What has America come to when minor figures issue general and bellicose threats in the conditional tense? What have we become?
If you wanna start discussing actual, real violence committed by the political right in the last year, I’m sure Shodan will be more than happy to play tit-for-tat.
Otherwise, all you got is “blowhard says stupid shit, film at 11.”
Seeing as the last time we saw the conservatives so ‘gun-ho’ about something, we got the conquest of Iraq, is it time for Liberals to start buying guns? Is anyone foolish enough to accept conservative’s word that actual violence against progressive elements is “off the table” ?
Does no little voice in your head chime in when you think about posting something like this? Warning you that intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty, dishonesty is a sin, and sinners go to hell?
hmmm… so these are not “true tea partiers” either. There seem to be a lot of these type around recently, who attend tea party rallies and get their names and pictures in the media… but they are all outliers.
Look away!
It’s just simple, very basic logic. In order to make statistical claims about a group, you need a valid scientific survey. “Teaparty folks who make the news by being nutty” is not a sufficient large and randomized sample.