Since Jared Lee Loughner went on his rampage in Tucson, we've been treated to perfectly ridiculous liberal howling about "violent rhetoric." The reason it's "perfectly ridiculous" is that “liberals being liberals," they've tackled the whole debate in such a politically correct manner that it makes the debate laughable.
According to liberals, what words supposedly incite violence? Words like "targeting," "locked and loaded," "crossfire," "job killing," "double barrel," etc. In other words, it's not people actually calling for violence; it's commonly used phrases -- that have long been used to describe politics -- that cause bloodshed by lathering up maniacs. Of course, only a complete moron could believe this – and, yes, if you believe this, I mean you personally are a moron.
Of course, even most liberals aren't this stupid. So, they've latched on to this theory for two reasons. The first is sheer opportunism. They're going to ignore the countless times their side has used words like "job killing" and "targeted" and they're going to pretend that only conservatives do this. This shows they're hypocritical and have no intellectual honesty. But, that's just par for the course for the professional Left.
However, the other reason is more sinister: Liberals commonly say things that, if they really believe the words that are coming out of their mouths, would lead to political violence. Let's talk about just a few examples.
BushHitler: Calling George Bush "Hitler" and Republicans "Nazis" became such a regular occurrence that it became jejune during the Bush years. Whether it was
Sandra Bernhard saying, "The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs" or
Michael Moore,"The Patriot Act is the first step. "Mein Kampf" -- "Mein Kampf" was written long before Hitler came to power. And if the people of Germany had done something early on to stop these early signs, when the right-wing, when the extremists such as yourself, decide that this is the way to go, if people don't speak up against this, you end up with something like they had in Germany. I don't want to get to that point."
If you could go back in time, before Hitler came to power, would it be immoral to kill him? People like Michael Moore, Sandra Bernhard and the rest of the professional Left were hoping someone would say "no" all during the Bush years.
The population of earth is "unsustainable:" At a minimum, you could go all the way back to Malthus on this argument, but liberals have become much more insistent about this crackpot argument in recent years. Just to name one example, Ted Turner
"If we’re going to be here [as a species] 5,000 years from now, we’re not going to do it with seven billion people."
So, how do we terminate billions of people to make life on the planet "sustainable?" The left-wing support for abortion and cutting off DDT have certainly eliminated millions, but that doesn't seem to be getting the job done. Is it going to take a Twelve Monkeys style virus? Would you trust one of the environmentalist left-wingers who thinks life on this planet is unsustainable -- with one of the many extremely lethal bioweapons that are out there? Would you trust Ted Turner with one? After all, if life is “unsustainable” with the current population, billions of people have to die.
Bush invaded Iraq to get revenge for his daddy / enrich Halliburton / get their oil / lied us into war: It wasn't enough to oppose the war in Iraq. No, liberals had to accuse Bush of causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers for the most frivolous reasons imaginable.
Remember what Michael Moore
"I want him [Bush] paraded in handcuffs outside a police house as a common criminal because I don't know if there's a greater crime than taking people to war based on a lie. I've never seen anything like Bush and his people. They truly hate our constitution, our rights and liberties. They have no shame in fighting for their corporate sponsors."
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." --Markos Moulitsas Zúniga on the four Americans who were murdered by terrorists and then had their corpses desecrated in Fallujah, Iraq.
"(George Bush) betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!"
Very few of these people actually believe what they were saying: the anti-war protests evaporated the moment there was a Democrat in office. But, what were these liberals really hoping to accomplish with their rhetoric? Were they hoping that a father who lost a son in Iraq or a soldier who saw his friends die, would pick up a sniper rifle and kill Bush for sending people to die for nothing? What would you do if a man sent your 18 year old son to die so he could make a few bucks for his friends?
The only way to save the planet is by decimating the world economy to fight global warming: So, if global warming is going to kill us all, along with the hapless polar bears, unless we do something, then what do we do? Some liberals have already suggested the next step: Criminalizing dissent. Here's
"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Here's Greenpeace on their blog this year,
The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
So, if you doubt global warming, they want you either jailed or killed as a war criminal -- if they bother to get that far. They may just save time by showing up where you live or work, presumably with a gun, like Jared Lee Loughner.
George Bush and 9/11: He LIHOP or MIHOP: During the Bush years, we heard prominent liberal after liberal claim that the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen on purpose or made it happen on purpose. This was and still is a mainstream view on the Left. Everyone from Rosie "it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel" O'Donnell to Van "(Bush may have) deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen" Jones believes it.
We're hunting and killing Al-Qaeda across the globe because they're responsible for 9/11. So, if the Bush Administration were really responsible for 9/11, what should we be doing to them? Yet, liberals are very comfortable with making this assertion. What's more likely to really lead to violence? Saying you're targeting someone to be defeated in an election or falsely accusing someone of murdering nearly 3,000 Americans? Which is really worse?