Even though we criticize the left wing and the right wing and all the party drama that goes along with it for inciting violence such as the one in Tuscan we certainly are quick to take yet another political stand condemn this wing and that wing to create more drama. shame on all of us.

So, Roger, do you believe that concerned citizens should remain silent when powerful politicians and pundits cross the fine line between mere advocacy and incitement to murder?

As Brad Friedman so aptly puts it, usually in the context of election integrity but just as applicable here, this isn't about left or right. It's about right and wrong.

Ernest, Don't you understand? If a public figure calls for the assassination of his opponent, either directly or by putting a gun sight over she picture, or by holding an event where supporters fire automatic weapons at an effigy, that may be wrong. But, IF YOU OBJECT TO IT, then you are just as guilty!

Hmmm. That doesn't make much sense does it? No intelligent person would believe it... unless they were a paid troll on damage control duty.

Most of what you say is about left or right Ernest. Please show an example of politicians and/or pundits inciting anyone to murder. You have a map of cross hairs over it, showing areas where politicians were considered vulnerable for the election. Get over it dude, politicians use military analogies all the time, on both sides.

WingnutSteve @ 4 said:

Please show an example of politicians and/or pundits inciting anyone to murder. You have a map of cross hairs over it, showing areas where politicians were considered vulnerable for the election.

Seriously, Steve? Are you really asking for that? As to Palin's map, it was also accompanied with rhetoric to "don't retreat --- RELOAD". She discussed "taking aim" at those politicians and much more.

(If they weren't gunsights, why did she remove them this week, and why did her spokesperson say, nonetheless, that they were "never, never, ever" meant as "gun sights", but they were just "surveryor's symbols" on a map. If that was true, why did Palin refer to the map in Nov. as "the bulleyes map" asking people to "take aim" at those candidates?)

Was she really hoping people would murder someone? Probably not. Might it have incited someone to murder? Absolutely.

Same with Michele Bachman exhorting supporters to be "armed and dangerous", telling them she was behind "enemy lines".

Same with Sharron Angle warning people that "2nd Amendment remedies" might be needed depending on how November went.

Same with Allen West's original Chief of Staff, telling folks at a campaign rally that if the "ballot box didn't work, the bullet box would".

I could go on a looong time here.

I could tell you about Richard Poploski who shot three cops in the head in cold blood at his front door because he thought they were coming to take his guns on Obama's order (now where would he get that idea?)

Or James Adkisson who said he shot up a "liberal" church in Tennessee because he could kill all the people named in Bernie Goldberg (Fox analyst)'s book "100 Liberals Who are Destroying America".

Or Byron Williams stopped by cops on his way to assassinate the ACLU and the Tides Fndtn. because he felt Glenn Beck (who was the only one to ever mention Tides outloud, almost ever, doing so 29 times before last summer's attack) was a great professor and mentor.

I could tell you about G. Gordon Liddy instructing listeners to "aim for the head" of ATF agents, or CNN/Red State's Erik Erickson promising to grab his wife's shotgun if anyone from the Census Bureau came to the door, or Beck pleading with members of special ops to "take action now" to "start the revolution".

As mentioned, I could go on and on. It hardly seems like it would be necessary, as it seems like you'd know all this shit by now. But, apparently, you don't, because you felt it necessary to ask Ernie such a ridiculous question.

Well, ridiculous to anybody who isn't hypnotized by disinformation RW bullshit. I thought you were not. I might have been wrong?

I'll say it again, war analogies are used all the time in politics by both sides.

Hateful things are said in politics, also by both sides.

Should the opposition be silenced?

WingnutSteve -

Seriously? Please tell me what Dems have told supporters that if they don't win with ballots, they should use bullets. What Dem has told supporters that if they don't win, "2nd Amendment remedies" will be necessary.

The far greater problem, of course, is the media and 24/7 incitement to violence. The 24/7 disinformation that America "is under attack", that our way of life will be ended unless "something" is done. That we will all be "enslaved" if the Democrats and Obama have their way as they try to destroy our economy and our very way of life unless "revolution" happens to stop their planned Marxist/Communist takeover of this nation. What kind of "patriot" would you be if you did NOT do something under those circumstances? This is, after all, a party that actually wants to KILL your grandmother by stealing her medical care and make her stand before a government "death panel" to learn if she will live or die!

I am, of course understating the problem. In reality, the messages are far worse, and they happen around the clock on every inch of radio bandwidth in every town in America. There is a reason why a new CBS poll out today has 28% of Republican respondents saying that violence against the government is just fine by them.

"Should the opposition be silenced?" They are not "the opposition", they are the shameful. They should not be silenced, they should be shamed, ridiculed, boycotted, run out of town on a rail and off the air in an instant because they have become the poisonous fringe voices that they actually are. They should be humiliated and made to understand that no, it is not okay to lie on our public airwaves in hopes of inciting hatred for political gain.

The only problem is, is that to make that message, we need a fair and balanced media, over OUR public airwaves, in order to make that case and let America hear it. Such as we have had a corporate monopoly takeover of our airwaves (thanks to DEMS in 1996!) we have little or no fair and balanced opportunity to make that case and to do debate what needs to be done to restore our airwaves, and with them, sanity to our society.

Hope that helps answer your question. If not, we'll have another article about all of this that may further help you to understand the issue tomorrow.

The poisonous fringe voices exist on both sides Brad. Randi Rhodes was an absolutely hateful person on her radio show, as was Garofalo and Franken. The only one I could listen to for more than 15-20 minutes was Big Ed and he's changed dramatically since he hit the TV waves. Olberman, Maddow.. they're all the same except for different ends of the political spectrum from the ones you detest. And just as they called Bush a nazi and a fascist and all the other loathsome things they said back then the dweebs today say the same about Obama. BUT, back then dissent was patriotic... today, it's hateful and racist and incites violence. I'm sorry, that's applying a double standard, you can't have it both ways.

And I'm sorry but they ARE the opposition, just successful where progressive talk has for the most part failed. Air America was on the airwaves in San Diego for a few years. As far as I know, I was the ONLY person down here to ever listen to it, don't know anyone else who ever listened. And I miss it because there is no alternative to right wing talk. But, if people don't listen you can't pay the bills so they went away. If stations are forced to carry a Randi Rhodes to counter the Sean Hannity people still won't listen IMO.

Btw, Steve. Here is a very short item from conservative Andrew Sullivan which may be helpful to you since it doesn't come from a "liberal" like me (your words, not mine).

AND you never answered the important question I asked you in response to your charge yesterday on the original Giffords thread. So that question is right here for you. You're welcome.

Well, ya got me with that conservative Andrew Sullivan piece. Yeah, the left would never say hateful things about the right huh? Like, hmmmm, Bush had the levees in N.O. blown up because he hates black people. Or how 'bout the 9/11 was an inside job? When the right held power, the left cornered the market on anger in the talk/blog etc. media.

You called me an apologist for those who would incite violence, or words to that effect. That's my answer to your question. I don't apologize for anyone.

WingnutSteve @ 8 and 10:

Look, until you're able to offer evidence of leading Democrats or progressives (either elected or in the media) encouraging non-democratic means of changing government, as now occurs around the clock in both Rightwing media and many GOP elected officials and candidates, you're just parroting unsupported (and unsupportable) RW propaganda. But feel free to prove me wrong. So far, you've failed to offer *any* specifics for your charges, and I've offered specific point after specific point.

As to the Clear Channel corporation flipping San Diego's KLSD two years ago, you should probably know that they'd had their best book ever before CC decided to flip the city's only non-RW talk station over to sports (it's 5th sports station in the market). It's ratings have been far lower as sports talk than they were as progressive talk. You should also know that CC removed its only talk radio competition for its RW stations when it removed its progressive talk station from the airwaves. The decision had nothing to do with money, which you'd know if, like me, you knew people who worked there when the flip happened.

Your description of what happened there is entirely fanciful and based on no actual facts whatsoever. It does, however, demonstrate precisely the problem I've been discussing: The RW media propaganda machine, disinforming our citizenry, assaulting democracy, making a mockery of the our publicly-owned airwaves (and the pathetic and cowardly failure of the FCC and the Democrats and Obama to do a damn thing about it)

Apparently you didn't bother to read my article on Sunday in which I detailed the imbalance on those public airwaves (91% feature RW talk, 2,570 hrs per week, versus 254 hrs of non-RW talk). Nor are you familiar with the fact that progressive talk regularly beats RW talk in markets where they go head-to-head, yet, for example, Stephanie Miller who beats Laura Ingram where they go head-to-head, is only placed on 40 affiliates, where Ingram is on some 400. Now why would that be?

Finally, you wrote:

You called me an apologist for those who would incite violence, or words to that effect. That's my answer to your question.

...But that was not my question. Not even close. The question, which you've now ignored twice, was in response to a very very serious charge you made against me, and it was a very very specific question. Once again, that question is linked right here.

If you're unable to answer it, I'll have to assume that, like so much of the seemingly unsupported, uninformed nonsense you've posted here in comments over the past several days in defense of the indefensible, it's a completely made-up, knee-jerk response to my well-supported points, in lieu of actual, informed, intelligent comment or debate or criticism of my points. Or worse.

I've answered your question Brad. And quite frankly I'm tired of playing your games. No matter what is said, you will always know that it's Palin and Fox and talk radio that caused this guy to snap. There's no evidence of that whatsoever, even MSNBC has said the same. And yet, it's a fact simply because Brad Friedman says it is. So, you win and I'm done with the senseless argument.

BTW, Stephanie Miller may do well head to head with Ingram in certain markets. Likely those markets are all located in the areas which show up as blue on the electoral map. I think in the areas which are red on the same map she probably wouldn't do as well but that's just a guess on my part. It's a center right country Brad, deal with it.

Re Wingnutsteve @4:

Rather than engage in redundancy by answering your question here, I will be providing a number of examples of politicians/pundits inciting murder and making terrorist threats in an upcoming piece, which will address the thorny question as to whether these individuals should be prosecuted.

In the interim, I would strongly recommend that you read Hate Speech and the Process of Dehumanization and Hate Speech and the Process of Dehumanization: A FOLLOW-UP.

WingutSteve @ 12 said:

I've answered your question Brad.

Actually, no, you haven't and I don't blame you, since it appears you can't. For the record, here was your charge:

And here was my question in response:

You have yet to answer it to my knowledge. Please feel free to point me to where you have done so, and I'll be happy to apologize.

No matter what is said, you will always know that it's Palin and Fox and talk radio that caused this guy to snap. There's no evidence of that whatsoever, even MSNBC has said the same.

And as I asked in the question you have yet to answer, where I have made that claim that you charge I "will always know"? Do you have any "evidence of that whatsoever"?

Please feel free to share it, or I'll assume you're pulling shit out of your ass in lieu of actually being able to make your case.

And yet, it's a fact simply because Brad Friedman says it is.

Where? When? I said it? Really? It seems to me you are making up "a fact" and pretending it's true "simply because" WingnutSteve said it.

So, you win and I'm done with the senseless argument.

Well, that's easier than demonstrating you didn't just make it up out of whole cloth, I guess. Don't blame you for cutting and running.

BTW, Stephanie Miller may do well head to head with Ingram in certain markets. Likely those markets are all located in the areas which show up as blue on the electoral map. I think in the areas which are red on the same map she probably wouldn't do as well but that's just a guess on my part. It's a center right country Brad, deal with it.

Your evidence for any of the claims you make in the above is what exactly? Cuz, um, sounds like you are simply making up more shit. If you'd like the empirical, verifiable evidence to prove you are wrong, just let me know (I suspect you don't.) Living a live of fantasy, I guess, it much easier than joining the rest of us in the real world.

WingnutSteve @4 wrote:

Please show an example of politicians and/or pundits inciting anyone to murder.

From the WikiLeaks press release, quoted in the article:

I could provide countless more, such as Michael Reagan, the son of the former President, stating that 9/11 conspiracy theorists should be "taken out" and "shot;" that he'd "pay for the bullet." Then there was Glenn Beck's musing about killing Michael Moore; wondering whether he should do it himself or hire a hit man.

What you cannot avoid, WingnutSteve, is that there is no legitimate place for violent, racist and dehumanizing rhetoric in the political discourse of a civil society.

Oh, and btw, your 'Tea Party' hero, Sarah Palin, whose "blood libel" remark is a reflection of profound ignorance, is still clueless about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment in no way proscribes the right of citizens to criticize her for her reckless use of violence-laden graphics and rhetoric. The ability to call someone out for the tone and content of what they say is what is actually guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Like most self-centered politicians, the dissembling Mrs. Palin is simply incapable of accepting personal responsibility for anything!

World Communication

The whole world has got to come together and learn to communicate children are the one thing we have in-common hurry up before it's to late

( It Takes A Village To Raise A Child )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYJhBoV5YU

( Song For My Son )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gey8AAlMHDs

God Bless Christina Taylor and Family
Mickey