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?

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.

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.

How so?

How about Jim Jones?

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.

Question for you, Jay. Should Charles Manson be in prison? He never personally killed anyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And whenever they don’t “act appropriately and with prudence” someone is justified in shooting at them?

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.

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.

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.

“… 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.