9. I Kid You Not. 9.
Tweet
Yes, friends, Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit has now linked to the 9th person attacking/disagreeing with me (bonus points for it being a self-loathing gay conservative).
NINE.
For a far left little-known agitator who gets my orders from George Soros and am paid in Nazi gold wrapped in baby’s skin, they sure care what I say in one way or another.
Is this the part where I get to say I won, or do I wait for Reynolds to outsource the attack for the tenth time?
I gotta say, this is like a sweet chaser after seeing President Obama beat the crap out of them last November.
Onward, dirty hippies, tonight we dine in hell!
So pretty.
87 Responses to “9. I Kid You Not. 9.”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I’m a big fan of wing-nuts and chickenhawks going “ZOMG YOU DON’T MATTER NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOU SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!”
Glenn thinks of Oliver when he’s with Helen
Congrats comrade, as it seems you’re winning friends and influencing people.
Media Matters and C&L are both whining that no MSM services are even discussing this lunacy that you guys keep trying so hard to make into the next ‘Limbaugh is the face of the Republican party’ meme.
How do you declare this a win if nobody notices?
Even quite a few posters at the hard-core left-wing blogs disagree. For which they are roundly chastised, btw.
You had to take a dig at Batman didn’t you?LOL Anyways, I would point to last nights Daily Show about Obama’s speech for you Superman fix.
Dennis,
So….when Glen Beck is talking about it and MSNBC is talking about it, and the Washington Post has an article…how much more MSM do you need? Should ESPN and the Disney channel cover this topic to suffice your ridiculous standard?
“Should ESPN and the Disney channel cover this topic to suffice your ridiculous standard?”
Dennis changes his standards a lot.
If no one backs you up, you are clearly wrong.
If people back you up, you are clearly a coward who can’t fight on their own.
It would be funny if the guy didn’t vote.
Thank you for the video.
I was in the 8th grade when Ali (nee Clay) fought Liston the first time. My teacher, Mr. Baird, thought everyone should be dignified and humble and never brag. He figured Clay was going to get his come-uppance, but it didn’t turn out that way.
It would be funny if the guy didn’t vote. — Southern Strategy
I do, though.
You don’t.
—–
So….when Glen Beck is talking about it and MSNBC is talking about it, and the Washington Post has an article…how much more MSM do you need.—White Whale
Glenn Beck talked about it to highlight the ridiculousness of the allegations. MSNBC….please. David Shuster? At what, 3:00 now? You seriously beclown yourself bringing that up as MSM. And C&L was whining precisely because MSNBC wasn’t covering it.
And please provide a link for the WaPo mention, I don’t see it.
I would like to point out the flame war that is now raging between of all sites little green football and every other wingnut refuge. If you go on memeorandum you will see that the guy at LGF had the nerve, nay the unmitigated GALL to imply that Glenn Beck and Faux Nooz are taking things too far with their hate talk. Well Pamela Geller aka Atlas Smug and her pals won’t be having that at all. Either you are for FauxNooz or you hate America dammit. This shit it is going to be HILARIOUS and I gotta say O Dub that you helped to make it all possible. I can’t wait to see what Instaputz and Dr Mrs Perfesser have to say about this.
I guess we can expect a post from Oliver blaming Bill Maher and the rest of the anti-religious left over the latest incident any minute now.
Nice strawman SaveFarris.
Funny I didn’t see anything in the article about the gunman watching Bill Maher or being an atheist. See conservatives are so stuck on stupid that they obviously haven’t noticed that nobody blamed any of the other shooting rampages on the right wing where nobody suggested that a right wing meme was part of the motivation. Now if Bill Maher’s name come up as being some kind of motivating force the thing about it is the Left will denounce HIM just as fast as it did Glenn Beck because we are INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. Although you would be hard pressed to come up with a clip of Bill Maher telling people to beware the coming scourge of Christianity and that Christians were going to come in and take your guns. Where as wingnuts are just worried about protecting their brand.
Try again dimwit.
I guess we can expect a post from Oliver blaming Bill Maher and the rest of the anti-religious left over the latest incident any minute now. –Save Farris
Did Left-Wing Anti-Catholic Paranoia Begat Church Shooting?
Black Helicopter Watch
Left-Wing Rhetoric, Gun Nuts = Violence
The title…
Blaming Conservatives for Murder: How the Left Scapegoats Conservative Media.
Did another one slip up and admit that there is “conservative” media? I wonder if that was intentional or just an “oops”…
Farris, please find me a comment from Bill Maher where he says he’d like to physically injure religious people.
Really, please do. I’m not even being snarky. I don’t want to blame Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, not even partially. Give me something to work with here. I am extremely open to being convinced.
I almost forgot, find me a comment from Maher to the effect I mentioned above, and also provide a link to a story suggesting that the shooter was motivated or inspired by anti-religious rhetoric in the media.
I guess we can expect a post from Oliver blaming Bill Maher and the rest of the anti-religious left over the latest incident any minute now.
Oh yeah? You guys speak Korean? You know what the motivation was?
Shorter Save and Dense: Our straw will blot out the sun!
Did Left-Wing Anti-Catholic Paranoia Begat Church Shooting?
Black Helicopter Watch
Left-Wing Rhetoric, Gun Nuts = Violence
Your point being?
Dennis,
You may not like MSNBC but it IS a new organization and it is mainstream. I do apologize on the Washington Post mix-up, it was the NYTimes…here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04blow.html?_r=4
I don’t count on the media to be extremely substanitive but for you to say that NO one is talking about this is ridiculous and not true.
Farris, please find me a comment from Bill Maher where he says he’d like to physically injure religious people.
Oh so now there has to be an example of Maher saying he wants to physically injure people?
Man, the goalposts keep getting moved around. When I ask for specifics about somebody advocating violence in the wake of those three cops getting shot, it doesn’t have to be specific. The “language” is what spurs these people on. However, when confronted with an example of somebody shooting up a church (like in Colorado where the shooter said he “hated Christians”) or a retreat center, suddenly actual specific examples of the left advocating violence is the standard. Not them comparing evangelical Christians to the Taliban. Not them lumping them all in with the Fred Phelps of the world. Not them referring to them as nothing but “haters” and “bigots” and other assorted nonsense. When do Democrats and liberals accept responsibility for the violence and vandalism inflicted on people in California because they supported Proposition 8?
So which is it? Does there have to be a specific incident of where somebody calls upon others to be violent or is it just “the language” and rhetoric?
Oh and it’s nice to see that Oliver once again disdains anybody who is not a straight white male not accepting liberalism as their political ideology. Therefore, a homosexual who happens to also be conservative is “self-loathing.”
Up to 9 now? Congrats.
Your logic however has been torn to shreds everywhere. Even by a self-loathing gay conservative. And some volokh dude.
Oh noes teh Beck listeners run fer teh lifes!
Epic. Fail.
You may want to respond to some of it. I find this to be quite entertaining.
Therefore, a homosexual who happens to also be conservative is “self-loathing.” Jay
I guess presumably David Brock is a former self-loather, Jay.
Oliver, you need to start a secondary count about how many times certain people keep showing up in every thread to keep saying what a stupid and pointless issue this is to them.
When I ask for specifics about somebody advocating violence in the wake of those three cops getting shot, it doesn’t have to be specific.
As I remember that discussion, it had to be very specific to satisfy you. IIRC, you said (paraphrase) “name one conservative who advocated killing cops?”
When G. Gordon Liddy’s remarks were pointed out to you, you kind of glanced right over them.
When I ask for specifics about somebody advocating violence in the wake of those three cops getting shot, it doesn’t have to be specific. The “language” is what spurs these people on.
Jay, as someone himself who is an avowed advocate of political extremism I can understand why you’d be a little defensive about this.
When I ask for specifics about somebody advocating violence in the wake of those three cops getting shot, it doesn’t have to be specific. The “language” is what spurs these people on.
Advocating violence in the wake of these tragic events is not what we’re upset about. It’s advocating violence preceding these events.
I guess presumably David Brock is a former self-loather, Jay.
Mr. Brock has admitted as much (see Right, Blinded by the).
Why do you suppose so few openly gay people are part of the modern Republican party, Dennis? Can you answer that one, or are you too chicken? Bawk bawk bawk.
Gay Patriot (such an oxymoron) say this:
Begs the question. Does there really have to be a direct statement?
Er…which is not to say that gay folks aren’t patriotic. Not what I mean at all.
However, when confronted with an example of somebody shooting up a church (like in Colorado where the shooter said he “hated Christians”) or a retreat center, suddenly actual specific examples of the left advocating violence is the standard.
That’s a deeply dishonest presentation, Jay. I think you know it. But just in case you don’t, you might wish to review the shooter’s past association with the church he victimized and the family enviroment in which he was raised. It’s not likely that left-wing rhetoric influenced him.
Now speaking of moving goal posts, yesterday the retort from conservatives was that it’s not fair to tar the right with the actions of an obviously deranged individual. Today, the response seems to be, “Yeah, but there are crazy people who aren’t conservative too!
Here’s where the goalposts belong: A growing portion of our political discourse has devolved into discussions of unspoken, secret motives and dark fantasies about the totalitarian impluses of our adversaries. This occurs on both sides of the aisle.
These fantasies are increasingly going mainstream. When information outlets–those recognized as legitimate news organizations–give credence to these fantasies, we can’t be surprised when people act on them.
Now: you want to play a round of “The Left Does It Too”? Go ahead. Name us an outlet–newspaper, cable channel, magazine, or the like–that traffics in conspiracy fantasies about the Catholic church, about religion in general, about the Republican party or the conservative movement.
Do that and you win.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/daily-show-wingnuts-gone-wild
Or this for some perspective.
When G. Gordon Liddy’s remarks were pointed out to you, you kind of glanced right over them.
Question for you Duros: Do you think it’s wrong to defend yourself against law enforcement agents if they’re shooting at you without cause?
Think about your answer to that question and then you’ll have the context of what Liddy was discussing. Context is a thing you guys seem to just ignore.
Advocating violence in the wake of these tragic events is not what we’re upset about. It’s advocating violence preceding these events.
Really? And Glenn Beck advocated violence when? Limbaugh when? Oh wait. It was Liddy. This guy was listening to Liddy when he was 7 and that’s when he plotted his attack! “15 years from now, I am going to kill cops! G. Gordon Liddy told me to!”
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound?
But just in case you don’t, you might wish to review the shooter’s past association with the church he victimized and the family enviroment in which he was raised. It’s not likely that left-wing rhetoric influenced him.
Interesting comment. I’m not singling you out here, but most of the people that comment on this blog and many other liberals out there, have concluded beyond any doubt that it was right-wing rhetoric (particularly that of Glenn Beck) that influenced this man to kill police officers.
This conclusion, despite the fact that a look into the background of this young man shows he’s had issues for some time now. He attacked a superior in the Marines in order to get kicked out so he could be with his girlfriend. The cops said they’ve been called to his house on a number of occasions. Some friends saw him days before this happened and said he appeared happy and talked about a birthday party he was going to attend that weekend. Another friend contradicted that, saying he was preparing for the end of the world and was stockpiling water and rice in his basement. He thought his guns were going to be taken away, but he also thought such orders were coming at the behest of some secret cabal that was supposedly running the country and was being given their orders by Jews. He committed acts of violence against his girlfriend and even against his own mother (who undoubtedly called the police on several occasions as a result of the fear she felt of her own son).
All of this.
Yet it was Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that caused this guy to lie in wait for 3 cops and open fire on them.
The part that most of y’all seem to be missing is the part where the opinion of one person – however loudly brayed through however large a megaphone – transforms into the action of another person. My understanding is that this metamorphosis takes place in one place, and one place only: the mind of the person who takes the action.
Right?
At some point before picking up a gun and killing with it, a shooter makes a choice. That choice belongs to him alone. When I hear the rants of Beck, Bachmann, Hannity and Limbaugh, I am not inspired to start firing. Neither, I assume, is Oliver. Nor Jay Tea. Why not? For myself, it’s because I don’t find their rants persuasive and because even if I did, I have a pre-existing moral imperative, inculcated in me through the examples of my parents and teachers and friends over the last 30+ years, that says killing people is bad.
Not everyone has that moral imperative. Some people are raised by monsters. What I don’t think anyone can fairly claim, though, is that inflammatory rhetoric makes a person do evil deeds. I don’t think it matters one whit (this is for you, Duros) whether the rhetoric comes from an entertainer or a newsmaker. People like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart happily blur the line between the already-poorly-defined genres all the time. Many Limbaugh apologists (of which I am not one) excuse his bloviations by claiming they are satire. Coulter apologists say the same thing. They may be right; hey, some people think what Dennis Miller does is comedy. The point is, whatever their nuance or lack thereof, words are not actions, and the one does not cause the other.
For the record, I’m disgusted by most right-wing rhetoric. I do think it’s appropriate to hold up hateful statements beside hateful actions and say, “This is what it looks like when someone puts these ugly ideas into practice.” But once you start claiming that the ideas are to blame for the actions, you’re headed down a very slippery slope.
@Jay: So you pass on my challenge?
but most of the people that comment on this blog and many other liberals out there, have concluded beyond any doubt that it was right-wing rhetoric (particularly that of Glenn Beck) that influenced this man to kill police officers.
Absent an admission from the shooter himself, that’s difficult to prove or disprove.
However, we have a comment from people who knew the shooter very well that he believed the Obama administration planned to deprive him of his guns and his rights.
It’s entirely possible that the shooter came to this conclusion without any help. However, you might have noticed that there are some highly visible personalities making a buck convincing people that the Obama administration holds totalitarian aims.
When I saw the headline, before the article showed up (slow connection) I amused myself by speculating on ‘nine what, exactly?’ What I guessed was the number of protestors at the latest Instaputz-flogged Tea Party event.
But this is good, too.
I love that Ali speech!
Where was the teleprompter?
Question for you Duros: Do you think it’s wrong to defend yourself against law enforcement agents if they’re shooting at you without cause?
I figure if they are shooting at me, they probably have cause.
Jay, it’s possible you’re a nice guy. You don’t seem anything like the Commentary Magazine sociopath, Jay Tea or as simple as Dennis, SaveFarris or YoMama.
But looking back at your old posts it seems you were quick to defend Republican John McCain’s admiration of terrorist G Gordon Liddy.
Right winger Liddy specifically advocated terrorist acts on American law enforcement officers and Republican John McCain still sought out his favor and praised Liddy profusely.
It was a sick act of a desperate Republican seeking out a terrorist to bolster his credibility amongst the extremists that control most of the Republican Party.
And, Jay, you perversely defended it.
Whether it’s hate speech by Taliban extremists or any other kind of extremist, especially extremists that obscure the rule of law or the Constitution with a gun, it’s important that decent, law abiding citizens recognize that violent rhetoric for what it is: an incitement of crazy violent people.
Right wingers who scream “free speech” to spout their bloody “between the eyes” terrorist rhetoric have never been prohibited from spouting terrorist rhetoric. Just ask right wing radio star Liddy, he got a personal interview with Republican McCain
The complaint by the left is that it reflects very, very, very badly on the Republican Party that it is ever more intimately connected with terrorist extremists.
Voters agreed. McCain lost.
As for your irritation with Taliban/Christian comparisons, when right wing pseudo* Christians hide behind religion to spout violent, terrorist rhetoric, than they are no better than the violent Wahhibist strain of Islam.
————
Jay, your posts are starting to sound unhinged and a more than a little bizzare.
It’s hard to even guess what you meant by “When do Democrats and liberals accept responsibility for the violence and vandalism inflicted on people in California because they supported Proposition 8?”
What “violence and vandalism”? Or are you making a threat?
Take a walk, count to ten, smell some roses. Then come back and think through your arguments. Your fellow commenters are starting to worry about you.
*pseudo means “fake.” Most right wingers are UN-CHRISTIAN.
Christ is a liberal and always has been.
This guy was listening to Liddy when he was 7 and that’s when he plotted his attack! “15 years from now, I am going to kill cops! G. Gordon Liddy told me to!”
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound?
Yes I do. Just as ridiculous as Barack Obama being a closet Black Panther bomb-throwing radical because of William Ayers’ actions when HE was 7 years old.
Check.
What I don’t think anyone can fairly claim, though, is that inflammatory rhetoric makes a person do evil deeds.
Rwanda, genius. Fundamentalist, radical Muslim demagoguery. I’m going to claim that in those two examples, inflamatory rhetoric had some influence. Same deal with Jim David Adkisson and Bernard Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh. And Glenn Beck and the latest shooter in Pittsburgh. I’ll go ahead and claim that there is a connection. The inflammatory rhetoric is certainly not the only influence, but it is there, and at the very least worth looking into. Do you really dispute this?
People like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart happily blur the line between the already-poorly-defined genres all the time.
You want to match up the worst of Beck, Limbaugh, with that of Stewart. Sure, right wing nimrods like our Dennis think there is some equivalence, but seriously, you’re going to have to come up with specific examples before you put them in the same sentence. For starters, Mr. Stewart readily admits that he is merely an entertainer, whereas Mr. Limbaugh takes great offense to that and holds demonstrable sway in the modern Republican party.
For the record, I’m disgusted by most right-wing rhetoric.
Stop it. You just lumped Jon Stewart together with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
But once you start claiming that the ideas are to blame for the actions, you’re headed down a very slippery slope.
Tell me where anyone has said that the inflammatory rhetoric was the one single cause for the violence. Pretending that there is zero effect from inflamatory rhetoric blasted out over the radio and TV is a more slippery slope. Perhaps you could think of some examples from history. Think hard.
It’s also extremely problematic to peddle in false equivalences. Among other truly horrible things, Mr. Limbaugh actually said,
Jon Stewart points this out and essentially says, “Wow, is Rush Limbaugh an asshole, or what?” Pretending that they are equivalent statements is disingenuouos or stupid at best. At worst, well, it’s much worse. That’s where we are right now, it’s Jon Stewart vs. Rush Limbaugh (and Bill O’Reilly vs. Paul Krugman). One is a much bigger asshole than the other. One has more influence than the other. Stop pretending that isn’t so. Don’t be like Dennis.
Felix Helix: “What I don’t think anyone can fairly claim, though, is that inflammatory rhetoric makes a person do evil deeds.”
Tell it to the survivors of the Rwanda massacre that was incited by Rwanda radio.
Felix, have you ever seen a riot incited?
History is full of examples of “inflammatory rhetoric” inciting people to do “evil deeds.”
You’re either uninformed, unbelievably naive, or intentionally being disenguous to suggest otherwise.
Question for you Duros: Do you think it’s wrong to defend yourself against law enforcement agents if they’re shooting at you without cause?
Question for you, Jay: So you believe there are justifiable reasons to return fire on law enforcement officers?
what ed said!
Do you think it’s wrong to defend yourself against law enforcement agents if they’re shooting at you without cause?
Let me put it this way, Jay. If officers are shooting at me? I’m probably past the point of right and wrong.
Question for you Duros: Do you think it’s wrong to defend yourself against law enforcement agents if they’re shooting at you without cause?
Question for you, Jay: So you believe there are justifiable reasons to return fire on law enforcement officers?
If cops are actively shooting at me I would think my best option is to raise a white flag, come out with my hands up and make full use of the justice system to show that their assault was unjustified.
Absolutely you can find examples of places where cops overreacted, made mistakes, acted like jackbooted thugs and/or just failed in their duties and responsibilities and innocent people who were not shooting back were killed. But the place to object to the actions, to the extent you can keep your head about you when your doors been smashed in and guys in black are pointing guns at you, is when the smoke has settled.
It’s interesting that those who would most readily suggest one should fire back at cops (aiming for their heads, of course) also are most vehement about declaring themselves in favor of Law and Order.
Therefore, a homosexual who happens to also be conservative is “self-loathing.”
It can be argued that conservatives aren’t racist. But its pretty clear the conservative movement is anti-gay.
But its pretty clear the conservative movement is anti-gay.
See also Right, Religious.
Man, the goalposts keep getting moved around. When I ask for specifics about somebody advocating violence in the wake of those three cops getting shot, it doesn’t have to be specific. The “language” is what spurs these people on.
First of all, Bill Maher – not an atheist – does not say anything that inflammatory about religion-at-large or Christianity-at-large in Religilous, nothing on the level of George Carlin material. Secondly, Maher and Carlin are not natural equivalents to Beck/Limbaugh/Coulter. Beck occupies a pretty good time slot on what purports to be a legitimate news network. Carlin was a stand-up comedian; Maher is a part-time stand-up comedian, part-time host of a political debate entertainment show.
Thirdly, the goalposts have not moved an inch, or if they have, they’ve moved on your end. The hypothesis here is and has been quite specific. Inflammatory rhetoric from mainstream conservative media figures + certain elements of pre-existing conservative ideology + a troubled person = violence. If the church shooter turns out to have been a great fan of leftist religion critiques, and one of those critiques can be shown to have been even remotely on the level of Limbaugh/Coulter/Beck rhetoric, you will have a case.
But its pretty clear the conservative movement is anti-gay.
The religious conservatives, yes. There are some libertarians in the Oregon hinterlands who admirably don’t give a shit who marries who and who sleeps with who, so long as all consenting adults are involved. They may be batty in other ways, but they’ve got that going for them.
It’s interesting that those who would most readily suggest one should fire back at cops (aiming for their heads, of course) also are most vehement about declaring themselves in favor of Law and Order.
Ain’t it though?
I figure if they are shooting at me, they probably have cause.
I’m sure the family of Amadou Diallo feels that way too.
News Reference, it’s interesting to see that you have time to troll Oliver’s archives looking for so-called incriminating evidence against me to support the absurd notion that G. Gordon Liddy is a “terrorist.” To claim he specifically advocated committing terrorist acts against law enforcement officers is asinine.
As for comparisons to the Taliban with regard to Christianity, they have been made, not in the face of any “violent, terrorist rhetoric”, but for simply being opposed to things like gay marriage. So please, spare me your hyperbole.
t’s hard to even guess what you meant by “When do Democrats and liberals accept responsibility for the violence and vandalism inflicted on people in California because they supported Proposition 8?”
What “violence and vandalism”? Or are you making a threat?
Your name is ‘News Reference.’ Go and look it up. No, I am not making a threat. I am saying that churches in California were vandalized and people from those churches were assaulted simply because they supported Proposition 8. It’s obvious that the rhetoric offered up by newspaper columnists, Huffington Post writers, left wing blogs and left wing politicians stoked the fires of people and caused them to get violent (according to the standards people here are stating).
If words are so strong as some of you are claiming, do you hold that bastion of liberalism, Al Sharpton responsible for the deaths of seven people in Harlem in 1995? Roland J. Smith, a protestor, shot people and set fire to Freddies Fashion Mart after Sharpton held rallies against the Jewish store owner, Fred Harari, for evicting a sub-tenant, which was a black owned record store. He was out there with his bull-horn, calling Harari a “white interloper.”
Now, in my view, Smith is responsible for what he did. Not Sharpton, regardless of what a jerk the guy is. Using your standards however, Sharpton is responsible. And unlike that crazy terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, people DID die as a result of Sharpton’s actions (again, using your standards) and here is a photo of a United States Senator who was running for President enjoying a laugh with a man who was responsible for the deaths of seven people:
http://mdh1954.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/barack-obama-al-sharpton1.jpg
Again, according to your standards.
Question for you, Jay: So you believe there are justifiable reasons to return fire on law enforcement officers?
Sure there is. If you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re being fired upon by law enforcement officers, firing back is nothing but self defense. How many people have been killed by law enforcement officers because of botched raids (mostly drug related), false id’s, and bogus warrants?
But the place to object to the actions, to the extent you can keep your head about you when your doors been smashed in and guys in black are pointing guns at you, is when the smoke has settled.
Right. Tell that to Kathryn Johnston
It’s interesting that those who would most readily suggest one should fire back at cops (aiming for their heads, of course) also are most vehement about declaring themselves in favor of Law and Order.
Really? And who would that be? Not me Sean. Don’t try to pigeon-hole me dude. My libertarian streak runs deep and while I have the utmost respect for those who work in law enforcement, I am also despondent on how rights and freedoms have been curtailed in this country because of the “war on drugs” (something which both parties in this country are at fault for, especially our sitting Vice President).
But its pretty clear the conservative movement is anti-gay.
Being opposed to gay marriage is not “anti-gay.”
Being opposed to gay marriage is not “anti-gay.”
Yes it is Jay. Yes it is.
Oliver — Martha Stewart may have some tips for the baby’s skin.
Sure there is. If you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re being fired upon by law enforcement officers, firing back is nothing but self defense.
So it’s okay to fire on police officers if you, yourself, feel that you’ve “done nothing wrong.” That’s just freaking awesome.
I suppose laying down your weapon and doing exactly what the police tell you to do would be wussing out or something.
Being opposed to gay marriage is not “anti-gay.”
Do you think it might just be possible that, with respect to gay people and their rights, that the conservative movement and the modern Republican party are about more than opposing gay marriage. Maybe we should look for some quotes on this matter. I wonder if the de facto leader of the Republican party has said anything about gay people, directly or indirectly.
If you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re being fired upon by law enforcement officers, firing back is nothing but self defense.
And of course, the cops will stop shooting at you?
Oh, and Jay, I’m wondering if you think Poplawski felt that he had “done nothing wrong” and so was justified in firing on the officers at his door.
Of course, Poplawski was nuts. But even so, if he really felt that he had done nothing wrong and if he really believed that, you know, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, what grounds do you have to criticize the guy’s actions?
The police were on his doorstep even though he believed he had “done nothing wrong.” And of course there were all those other times the cops had shown up when he had “done nothing wrong.” And we all know the horror stories of botched police raids! Why what other choice did he have but to open fire on the cops!
Or do you have some kind of qualifier in mind, such that only “sane” people can determine for themselves whether it’s justifiable to fire on police officers?
Jay the argumentation technique you are using is called “false equivalency.”
Jay: “churches in California were vandalized and people from those churches were assaulted”
And, if true, that’s not comparable to right winger Jim Adkisson killing Christians for being liberal. A hatred that was arguably directly incited by his favorite authors, O’Reilly, Savage, and Hannity.
But that aside, those that you’ve accused of committing “vandalism” and “assault” didn’t need provocation by the “left.” Right wing extremists were saying that certain consenting adults weren’t equal and didn’t deserve the same rights that the rest of us have. To some people, that’s provocation enough to do a lot of extreme things. Not that provocation alone makes reacting with extremism defensible.
If someone said you were not equal or worthy and didn’t have the right to have your favorite exploding toy, it would seriously piss you off.
That’s what a whole group of people were being told, that they were not equal or worthy and didn’t have the same rights you and I have: being able to make a lifetime commitment to someone we love.* That’s a REALLY serious governmental intrusion into consenting adults personal lives and done largely at the behest of specific religious sects.
As for Al Sharpton, he’s usually a clown and an embarrassment to the left. He’s been stuck in the ’60′s for a long time. But frankly, Jay, if you had been a black man during the ’50′s and ’60′s you would have been a seriously angry panther and likely would be to this day.
But calling someone an “interloper”** isn’t the same as calling for a revolution (Bachmann) and fantasizing about murder on air (Beck) amongst the dozens of other right wing examples of violent rhetoric that have been listed by people in previous threads you’ve taken part in.
More, specifically, Sharpton didn’t tell or even imply for anyone to commit violence against anyone let alone American law enforcement officers like Gordon “head shots” Liddy did. Republican McCain’s association terrorist advocate G Gordon Liddy was contemptible. Between the media’s love affair with McCain and the media’s fear of right wing terrorists like Liddy that story was swept under the rug. Unfortunately, your early defense of him now has the two of you stuck together in the mind.
Still, most people can’t step into other people’s shoes and see the world from their perspective, but you have significantly more perceptive than the average troll.
You can imagine being treated like a second class citizen with no rights. It’s the thing you fear most: being told that you no longer have the “right” to your exploding toy. It makes you angry just thinking about. So angry that facing off government agents is something you can write about and even defend.
Well, that’s likely how those mythical vandals and assaulters felt about the institutions that were spending multi-millions to take away what they believed with equal fervor were their rights. It didn’t make whatever it is you claimed they did right (assuming you weren’t lied to or given some exaggerated account of what happened).
Jay: “If words are so strong as some of you are claiming”
Words are often what start wars and words are what occasionally end wars.
How much more difficult is that for some people to understand?
Jay: “If you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re being fired upon by law enforcement officers, firing back is nothing but self defense.”
Good luck with that. Sounds like a DBC suicide wish.
Jay: “libertarian streak”
Jay, “Libertarians” have been in bed with the wrong party for decades. Republicans have vastly expanded government, government spending, government debt, government surveillance, government/corporate entanglements, and government intrusion on citizen’s personal lives.
“Being opposed to gay marriage is not “anti-gay.””
Correct, it’s anti-human and anti-libertarian.
It’s government intruding on two people making a commitment to each other.
Even worse from a true libertarian position: it’s government intruding on citizen’s personal relationships largely because of specific religious sects pushing for government control over personal decisions (right wing Mormons, Evangelicals, and Catholics).
A growing number of Christians accept two consenting adults exercising their rights to marriage equality.
* Or in the cases of Republican leaders McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, et. al.: making serial marital commitments to two or three different consenting adults.
** “interloper” : “one that intrudes in a place or sphere of activity”
Yes it is Jay. Yes it is.
So Barack Obama is anti-gay. Got it.
Fafaroo, I know you’re not the brightest person around, but now you’re just being an idiot. Whether or not that’s on purpose, I don’t know. I could care less what a person “feels” because it has nothing to do with feelings. If somebody “felt” like they were justified and they weren’t, they’ll be punished and deservedly so.
I suppose laying down your weapon and doing exactly what the police tell you to do would be wussing out or something.
Yes, but that’s not the scenario you brought up. Your question was, “So you believe there are justifiable reasons to return fire on law enforcement officers?” IE, your question makes it clear that the law enforcement officers came in guns blazing, not armed and telling somebody to drop their weapon. There’s a huge difference. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is true.
Nice try.
Jay the argumentation technique you are using is called “false equivalency.”
No, that is not what I am doing. The implication has been that the wonderful hippy-lettuce smoking liberals run around making love and not war all the time, and my point is that the left has committed acts of violence and if rhetoric is supposedly to blame (lefty standards) then you have to admit that the left is guilty of it as well. If you want to try and build a strawman by raising it to an argument over equivalence, have fun. I see O’Reilly is now one of the stokers as well. Effing hilarious.
I didn’t bother reading much of what else you wrote, because as soon as you got to your apologia for Al Sharpton, every ounce of credibility you had on the subject went right down the toilet.
Correct, it’s anti-human
So then Barack Obama is anti-human. Got it.
It’s government intruding on two people making a commitment to each other.
The government is not “intruding” on anything. The government is saying, “We will not recognize this marriage.” If gay people want to get married, by all means, go right ahead. But the government not recognizing it is not “intrusion” at all.
No, that is not what I am doing.
Yes it is, Jay. Yes it is.
So then Barack Obama is anti-human. Got it.
Obama’s official position on gay-homosexual marriage is anti-human, yes.
Jay: “the left has committed acts of violence”
Yup, the American left wing stopped both Japan and Germany simultaneously in World War II and stood up against Communism in the Korean War and Vietnam War.
Republicans cut and ran from both Korea and Vietnam and were even collaborating with Germany before forced to fight.
Reagan was too weak (or maybe it was just cowardice) to fight during WWII and then cut and run from Lebanon.
Was that short enough for your attention span to finish?
I could care less what a person “feels” because it has nothing to do with feelings. If somebody “felt” like they were justified and they weren’t, they’ll be punished and deservedly so…IE, your question makes it clear that the law enforcement officers came in guns blazing, not armed and telling somebody to drop their weapon. There’s a huge difference.
Okay, Jay. Let’s back up here just one second. I was assuming you lived in the real world where most law enforcement officers don’t simply open up guns blazing on people without a hint of warning or without some justification.
Apparently, however, you live in a world where every cop must be eyed with suspicion at all times in case they decide, without cause or warning, to open fire on you in a direct assault on your security and liberty.
I believe most of us would call that any extremely paranoid view of the world.
At any rate, Jay, it seems that the only scenario, then, in which you think it’s justifiable to return fire on a police officer is if that police officer has clearly gone “rogue” and is threatening you with physical harm or death for no apparent reason at all.
I don’t think anyone would argue with that but I have to ask, does this happen a lot in your neighborhood? You gotta rogue cop problem where you live?
Because I live in Los Angeles where we’ve had more than our fair share of police brutality cases — you may have heard of a few — and I can’t think of a single instance in which any one in any position of responsibility or authority ever came fucking close to suggesting that the victims of these attacks would have been justified in firing on the police officers who were abusing them.
I know Ice T had a little song out a while back with an opinion close to yours. I never would have guessed you two would have had so much in common.
But that’s kind of where political opposites meet isn’t it: in the paranoid extremes of their victimization fantasies.
Jay Caruso: “Being opposed to gay marriage is not ‘anti-gay.’”
J. Winnfield: “Yes it is Jay. Yes it is.”
I have to agree. You are denying someone a basic right (the right someone to marry the person of their choice) based on their sexual orientation.
The reasons given now are the same reasons given back in the 1960s to outlaw interracial marriage. The very same reasons, including the inability to have kids.
It’s true. A lot of people thought interracial marriages would result in deformed or otherwise non-viable kids.
And the modern conservative movement is direct descendants of these people.
Interesting comment. I’m not singling you out here, but most of the people that comment on this blog and many other liberals out there, have concluded beyond any doubt that it was right-wing rhetoric (particularly that of Glenn Beck) that influenced this man to kill police officers.
Interesting comment.
I’m not singling you out here, but some of the people that comment on this blog and many other liberals out there, have concluded beyond any doubt that it was right-wing rhetoric (particularly that of Glenn Beck) that was one of the main influences on this man, by his own admission, to kill police officers. Not quite the same as what you claim some of us are saying – but you knew that, and, what’s more, went the extra mile to misrepresent things – when some of us are referring to the facts as we have found them.
I am singling you out, and particularly pointing to you, and other commenters like you, on a regular basis, because you, and other commenters like you, twist the statements of the liberals here – to turn pro-choicers into baby killers, and those who suggest that, based on the evidence shown, the latest rash of killers has had the conservative hate and scare media front and center in their tv guides into solely blaming Glenn Fcuking Beck and his foaming at the mouth outrageousness for these psychos going psycho. There’s an awful lot of awful going on out there right now, and this is a major influence that is one the the primary causes tipping some people into going postal. To deny, misrepresent, or distract from that point, even now, is still debasing the debate. While inflaming things even further. Another Republican’t standard from the Limbaugh Field Ops Manual, I’m afraid…
Which is why I post my silly posts pointing to your silly party being much much sillier than Jethro Q. Bunn Whackett Buzzard Stubble and Boot Walrustitty.
And he held Leiscester.
Me: “What I don’t think anyone can fairly claim, though, is that inflammatory rhetoric makes a person do evil deeds.”
News Ref: Tell it to the survivors of the Rwanda massacre that was incited by Rwanda radio.
Felix, have you ever seen a riot incited?
History is full of examples of “inflammatory rhetoric” inciting people to do “evil deeds.” You’re either uninformed, unbelievably naive, or intentionally being disenguous to suggest otherwise.
I think you’re groping for the word “disingenuous”, which, I assure you, I am not being. No, I’ve never seen a riot in person, though I did once lead a walkout to protest Operation Desert Shield when I was in high school, and used some rather inflammatory rhetoric to do so. Yes, I’m aware that history is full of examples of angry speech followed by destructive action; I’ve seen Triumph of the Will. The opposite, too: JFK exhorting citizens to ask what they could do for their country, for example. Or pick a speech by Obama, who has inspired me more than any politician in my lifetime. We’ve all got our heroes, the people who seem to make sense to us, who may even serve as examples for the way we want to live.
But inspiration is not causation. I don’t care if you’re a Nazi or a Hutu or a Dittohead or a Weatherman — you don’t get to point the finger at anyone else for the actions you choose to take, no matter what they said or how persuasively they said it.
Ed: The inflammatory rhetoric is certainly not the only influence, but it is there, and at the very least worth looking into. Do you really dispute this?
What’s to look into? Did Fox News pull the trigger? So the guy was inspired by paranoid right-wing fantasies — so what? David Berkowitz was inspired by a neighbor’s dog. Some people are crazy. I get the impulse to place blame; when something terrible like this happens, it’s natural to try to figure out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again. But even if you could somehow shut up every conservative talking head in the world, you’d never achieve that goal.
By the way, Ed: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are all self-described entertainers who make their dime responding to the news of the day. Beck called himself a rodeo clown. That Limbaugh quote about killing almost all the liberals? Satire, and rather obvious satire at that. Stewart has referred on a number of occasions to his “fake news show”, even though it has been widely noted that many people find it more informative than what the “serious” news anchors have to offer. In an earlier comment, I mentioned Ice T’s song “Cop Killer” as another example of inflammatory rhetoric that did not and does not cause violence, and Duros claimed that was different because it was entertainment and not “serious” news; hey, anyone remember Chuck D’s famous quote that rap music is black America’s CNN?
The point is that whether it’s someone you like (Stewart) or hate (Limbaugh), take seriously (Obama) or mock openly (Coulter), whether it’s “news” or “fake news” or “entertainment” or “infotainment” or satire or a sermon or a screed or a song, words don’t kill. Tapdance all you want, but there’s no getting around it.
Being opposed to gay marriage is not “anti-gay.”
Yes, it is. Barack Obama’s position on this issue is fucking stupid. As is the overall position of the Democratic party. Its stupid. The idea that the lives of we heterosexuals is going to be disturbed by gays being allowed to marry is as ridiculous now as the idea that interracial marriage would bring about the end of civilization.
Now, in the Democratic party’s defense, while their position on this issue is stupid, they at least have the decency to not consider gay Americans less than human in the way that conservatives do.
“Disingenuous” Concern Troll “Felix Helix:”
“… Obama, who has inspired me more than any politician in my lifetime.”
…
“But inspiration is not causation.”
So Obama’s inspirational words didn’t “cause” you to do anything? Not even “cause” you to do as little as vote for they guy? Wow.
Perhaps you are conflating “cause” with “influence.” If you are, you are clearly uninformed about how much “causation” can be directly attributed to “influence.”
How disconnected from cause and effect are you?
This disconnected: You’re living in a fantasy world in your head where you can claim to “lead” after using “some rather inflammatory rhetoric to do so” and then turn around and claim that rhetoric isn’t followed by actions.
By your own definition you didn’t “lead” anything because in your fantasy world there are NO leaders because that would require words to be followed by actions.
No one is asserting that rhetoric is always followed by actions. For instance, your claim that Obama’s words inspired you doesn’t mean you voted for the guy. If you did then that means that words could have the causation you are claiming doesn’t exist.
Nor is anyone suggesting that just “words” pull triggers. No, instead what is being said is that words can influence (cause) people to pull triggers (or build roads or start wars or even learn CPR while listening to the “words” on a phone headset while simultaneously saving a life with the just learned CPR).
Even your own argument that “inflammatory rhetoric” does(n’t) “lead” people to do things is screwed up by your own words.
Apparently in your world if you argue both for and against your own argument simultaneously then you are never wrong? Neat trick that.
Better yet, perhaps you may be living in the perfect right wing world: words might never cause you to think.
For as dense as you are being it’s a wonder that anyone’s words ever caused you to learn language.
Apparently Glenn Reynolds isn’t a fan of democracy and would prefer feudalism or aristocratic oligarchy: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75839/
Although with the stupid, passive aggressive, half thoughts I’m sure he’ll have just enough wiggle room to deny it even though it’s very clear he believes the top 1% should have more than 1% of the vote because they pay more taxes. What an ass.
Now, in the Democratic party’s defense, while their position on this issue is stupid, they at least have the decency to not consider gay Americans less than human in the way that conservatives do.
Perhaps I’m optimistic, but I believe that for many of them, their position is entirely a political calculation. That is, a liberal Democrat would naturally have no issue w/ gay marriage, but Sen. Kerry’s campaign was destroyed partially by the issue and so they realize that for the moment it’s politically radioactive, so they’ll leave it to the state’s for now. The ban is taking slavery’s path to extinction, hopefully minus the tragic ending.
I was assuming you lived in the real world where most law enforcement officers don’t simply open up guns blazing on people without a hint of warning or without some justification.
You’re right. Most don’t. But some do. Some have. And some will. That’s a fact, not a paranoid fantasy. Do a little research on the issue. You’re building another one of your famous strawmen arguments. I never suggested in any way that most law enforcement officers open fire without provocation so the rest of your comments on the matter are completely pointless. The only one living in a fantasy world is you for believing that all law enforcement officers act appropriately and with prudence in every situation in which they use their firearms.
The reasons given now are the same reasons given back in the 1960s to outlaw interracial marriage.
Again it surfaces. One of the most bogus defenses of gay marriage there is. I see Oliver raised that bogus argument as well.
I notice people are taking liberties with Barack Obama with regard to his opposition to gay marriage by writing, “his position” is anti-gay. Which is it? Is Obama anti-gay or is his “position” anti-gay? Wouldn’t you say there was a difference? Am I anti-gay because I support civil unions but oppose state sanctioned marriage?
No, instead what is being said is that words can influence (cause) people to pull triggers (or build roads or start wars or even learn CPR while listening to the “words” on a phone headset while simultaneously saving a life with the just learned CPR).
Influence does NOT however, lead to responsibility. If tens of millions of people listen to the same radio show day after day and DON’T commit acts of violence based on what they heard, it is absolutely the most ridiculous thing in the world to point fingers at that host of that radio show when one disturbed person out of those tens of millions decides to do so. It’s absurd, but the left is doing it anyway and their effort is not because they’re concerned about somebody getting hurt. They’re using it as a convenient excuse to as I said before, silence those they do not like.
Nothing more. And it’s sad.
The only one living in a fantasy world is you for believing that all law enforcement officers act appropriately and with prudence in every situation in which they use their firearms.
And whenever they don’t “act appropriately and with prudence” someone is justified in shooting at them?
Oh and Jay, did your brain switch off between the first sentence and the last in this paragraph:
You’re right. Most don’t … The only one living in a fantasy world is you for believing that all law enforcement officers act appropriately and with prudence in every situation in which they use their firearms.
“I was assuming you lived in the real world where most law enforcement officers don’t simply open up guns blazing on people without a hint of warning or without some justification.”
Jay Caruso: “You’re right. Most don’t. But some do. Some have. And some will.”
To channel right-wingers…
‘Why do you hate the police?’
Me: “The reasons given now are the same reasons given back in the 1960s to outlaw interracial marriage.”
Jay Caruso: “Again it surfaces. One of the most bogus defenses of gay marriage there is. I see Oliver raised that bogus argument as well.”
It’s not a bogus defense, it is a fact. The same reasons given now are the ones given back then. They were bullshit then, they are bullshit now.
“I notice people are taking liberties with Barack Obama with regard to his opposition to gay marriage by writing, ‘his position’ is anti-gay.”
His position as written is anti-gay. But it is less anti-gay than the GOP position.
Sometime living in the real world means choosing leaders that are not perfect, but the best option available.
“They’re using it as a convenient excuse to as I said before, silence those they do not like.
Nothing more. And it’s sad.”
Oh the hypocrisy. It’s sickening.
Eight (60) years of the right wing trying to “silence those they do not like[,]” especially anyone that disagreed with their dear leader(s)… and now Jay the right wing terrorist defender* is talking about murdering American cops.
Classic right wing extremist. The expectation of submission when they are in charge and the advocacy of violent insurrection when they aren’t.
Why do you hate America Jay?
Love it or leave it, right?
“The hypocrisy”, “it burns!”
What’s especially perverse is that the right wing is trying to get the left to stop talking about what the right is talking about. In right wing world, right wing crazy talk is okay but criticism (talking) about right wing crazy talk isn’t okay.
Even the concern troll is trying to detach any responsibility from the right’s leadership from the right’s followers. And yes, Beck and Limbaugh are Republican leaders, only a concern troll or a right winger in denial could honestly say otherwise.
Since words don’t matter it’s amusing to have the the right and their concern troll allies become so engaged (and frequently fauxraged) by words.
* Jay, since you’ve literally defended a terrorist advocate and have even written about excusing some increasingly crazy violent things and even suggested that words somehow don’t matter, you clearly wouldn’t mind being called a “terrorist,” right?
It’s just a word, right? You even meet the definition of a “terrorist” so it’s not like it should bother you, right?
Just a word in the right wing world. Maybe that’s why it was so easy for them to throw the word “terrorist” at the left for the last eight years.
Mind numbing.
For the record: WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
And whenever they don’t “act appropriately and with prudence” someone is justified in shooting at them?
No, I said no such thing. You would be a good candidate for Tom Smykowski’s ‘Jump To Conclusions’ mat.
Oh and Jay, did your brain switch off between the first sentence and the last in this paragraph:
Actually, I did it on purpose. What I did there is what you do ALL THE TIME.
It’s not a bogus defense
It IS a bogus defense. The two are not comparable. A black man marrying white woman or vice versa is still a man marrying a woman.
His position as written is anti-gay. But it is less anti-gay than the GOP position.
You conveniently ignored what I wrote after that. I could give a rat’s ass about how he measures up to the GOP. That’s not what I am asking. What you ignored came after:
Which is it? Is Obama anti-gay or is his “position” anti-gay? Wouldn’t you say there was a difference? Am I anti-gay because I support civil unions but oppose state sanctioned marriage?
Oh the hypocrisy.
I was wondering how long it would take before you pulled that rabbit out of the hat.
Influence does NOT however, lead to responsibility.
Question for you, Jay. Should Charles Manson be in prison? He never personally killed anyone.
Question for you, Jay. Should Charles Manson be in prison? He never personally killed anyone.
Cmon dude. That is weak.
Actually, Jay, Duros62′s question is completely valid considering your (and Felix Helix’s) position.
Either the ‘leader’ that only uses “words” has some accountability or they don’t.
Be consistent within your own logic.
By your position (and concern troll Helix’s), Charles Mason should never have gone to jail.
Some on the left are saying (with words) that that position is only slightly less crazy than Manson himself.
Words have consequences.
Cmon dude. That is weak.
How so?
How about Jim Jones?
Jay, how about mafia bosses that only used (code) words to run large criminal organizations but they personally never did anything “illegal”?
Just how much insane, murderous, criminal activity is permissible under your idea of right wing “libertarianism.”
Under it’s the current incarnation, “libertarianism” is the defender of insane, murderous, criminal activity.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention to the real world consequences of modern day libertarian rhetoric.
Holy hell. The stupid has been brought to a whole new level.
Charles Manson was involved in a direct conspiracy to commit murder. If two people plan to kill somebody and it can be proven (as it was in Manson’s case) and the victim is murdered as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specifics which of the people involved in the conspiracy actually committed the murder.
It’s pathetic that this has to be explained.
and now Jay the right wing terrorist defender* is talking about murdering American cops.
That’s a good one. I enjoyed the laugh. Thanks. I mean, looking at your website, which looks like it requires a serious case of ADHD in order to follow kind of reveals that something is a little ‘off’ with you dude.
it is not necessary to prove with specifics which of the people involved in the conspiracy actually committed the murder.
I see. That seems to have wiggle room built right in.
Isn’t a conspiracy words that lead to actions?
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not for one minute trying to suggest that Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Chris Wallace or even Steve Douchy are engaged in some right wing conspiracy to incite violence against liberalism. It’s just that after a while, all this talk must lead up to something. Otherwise, why would they keep talking like that?