No, they don't.

Please provide an example of a "left-wing" political candidate with an actual chance of winning who said anything comparable to "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Random crazy people saying stupid poop is not comparable to leaders and candidates saying stupid poop.

That would be like defending Ahmadinejad by pointing out the violently anti-Muslim things said by people on the right.

Oh, wait, except those things are said by the leaders of the right. Sorry. Not the same thing at all. I actually can't come up with a good analogy, because the right wing really is that glob crazy.

Madonna, Sandra Bernhardt and crazy college students?

Come on now, Jorodryn, I know you know how to read. Please demonstrate that you do.

So Obama saying if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun is not threatening?

Saying we'll punish our enemies? who is his enemies? is it the GOP since that was who he was referring to at the time? Punish them how? Enemies? Sounds pretty confrontational to me. But I'll bet I'm taking that out of context, it was just a speech to get people to act and vote or something...

I think you took that statement out of context, speaking about demonstrating how to read. In that statement I see him referring to people looking for "2nd amendment remedies", not himself. It strikes me as more of an opinion on how he sees what the reaction might be to a runaway government. You honestly believe that he was promoting the assassination of Harry Reid? Honestly?

Considering that Sharron Angle is a woman, Jorodryn, I think you might be the one with no idea what's being said. Especially when you consider the follow up line that was quoted for you.

nope didn't know who said it...

Sharron Angle was Harry Reid's opponent in the Nevada Senate race last year. If your opponent in the race you were in had been talking about guns and "second amendment remedies", and followed that up with a statement that you should be "taken out" first, would you still be saying "Nope, no threat there"?

Since it was in a campaign I believe I would jump to the logical conclusion that take him out would mean vote him out of office. Not the best way to say it, but I would not think she was advocating having him removed any other way.

If it were a Democrat who said it, you'd be saying something different, if your previous expressed opinions are any indication.

So then you were similarly concerned by Obama's rhetoric in 2008, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Sorry, but angry rhetoric and violent metaphor are stock-in-trade for politics. I have yet to see anything indicating that the Tea Party (or anyone else for that matter) is somehow demonstrably different in this regard.

No it wouldn't. I was asked for an example. I picked one. I don't think Obama meant anything by calling the GOP his enemies other than as a political point of view. Same with his gun to a knife fight comment. It is, for better or worse, part of the political dialog that takes place during a campaign. Nobody has mentioned the democratic bullseye map that was out, granted it had targets based on percentage wins not congressional districts, but hey that's ok... those targets don't mean anything.

What I want is fair reporting of the news. If I want vilification I will go watch what the pundits are saying. When it is in the news I want reporting on the actual facts, not conjecture that can't be proven.

Gah! You're right. I was just thinking Lindsay Lohan movie and that was the first to pop up.

Single instances might compare, but when you look at the overall scene, it's blatantly clear that the right wing is far more guilty than the left. What we have here is a situation in which one side is justifying their genocide by pointing out that the other side killed someone once too.

Guilty of what? Because from where I'm looking, it appears to be a situation where one side is accusing the other of plotting genocide based on absolutely nothing except their own mistaken sense of moral superiority.


Tell me you don't think that the real solution to America's problems would be to disenfranchise all the conservatives so that superior liberal sensibilities can build the country that "should be"...