So Beck, et al, are over the top. So what? If they weren’t, and were simply quietly disagreeing with President Obama on a daily basis, they’d be treated with hysterical disdain and character assassination anyway. If their hyperbole and schtick make people sit up and take notice of the hard turn left this country is about to take, isn’t that worth something? I’m perfectly happy to let them be the lightening rods for the left’s smear campaigns and politics of personal destruction while more and more American citizens quietly begin to pay attention. Perhaps when a leader does emerge, the left will be so busy demonizing Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., that they won’t notice the new guy (or gal) until it’s too late.

“If we’re going to put a ‘cost’ on the words of conservatives how about liberals? Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib (for more than a month on the front page!) which gave hope to our enemy that we would lose will. We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.

The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.”

Ok so members of the media spouting objectively false statements is the same as the media exposing horrible truths in violation of our domestic laws as well as our treaty obligations? Interesting…

“Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib” -cite?

“We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.” At the time he said that, weren’t like 600k Iraqis dead and a million displaced. I shudder to actually know what your def of lost is. Also, the reason the ancient Romans had a saying to the effect of “you can’t win an occupation” is b/c that’s been common sense for like 3k years.

“The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque.” -They have? please cite. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.” -its not? Either you don’t think it is or your quoting someone. Please cite.

“And ALL the evidence points to the Beatles’ song “Helter Skelter” being a FACTOR in Charles Manson’s murders. But we don’t go around blaming the Beatles for the actions of someone who was clearly insane.”
-gibberish. Did The Beatles, a music band, hold themselves out as qualified arbiters of who or who not should be killed by crazy cults? Do Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush, whoever else hold themselves out as political commentators to be taken seriously, spouting “truths” in the form of “OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS”? You think that wasnt a TINY false equivocation on your part when a crazy person latches on to one thing and not the other? Either The Beatles were really badmouthing the ppl at Tate Ranch or your response is a false analogy. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Helter Skelter was about a carnival ride Manson interpreted to be about an apocalyptic race war, were LaPierre, Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. comments about Obama’s agenda so laughably misinterpreted? The point is, when you hold yourself out there as a “serious political commentator” you have a degree of responsibility that they all 100% betrayed by pursuing fear-mongering over utter BS to improve ratings. They are somewhat responsible when crazies latch onto that, the Beatles are not.

If that’s your no. 1 analogy for this, then this argument is already over.

Hell, that guy who shot up a church a few months ago pretty much used one of O’Reilly’s books as a bible.

Google Unabomber + Al Gore. If you’re going to hold O’Reilly accountable for that, then presumably you hold Gore accountable for Kaczinski.

[Glenn Beck is] the one spouting off about supposed FEMA concentration camps, the black helicopters and those idiotic doomsday scenarios.

To debunk them. Yesterday he had on a guy from Popular Mechanics to debunk a conspiracy theory about a supposed “FEMA death camp” in Indiana, which is actually an Amtrak repair facility.

Now, if you want to argue that he shouldn’t be addressing these urban legends, that’s one thing. But to say he’s promoting them is simply false.

The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.

Right Wing Nuthouse makes a good, though rather vitriolic, point about the allegations that are being thrown around regarding the Oakland, PA shooter’s motivations.
But beyond Willis’ usual hysteria and laughable hyperbole, there is this fantas…

And ALL the evidence points to the Beatles’ song “Helter Skelter” being a FACTOR in Charles Manson’s murders. But we don’t go around blaming the Beatles for the actions of someone who was clearly insane.

As was pointed out yesterday, Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and had a protective order for abuse sworn out against him by a previous girlfriend. Either of those by itself is sufficient to disqualify a person from legally possessing firearms under current laws. This means that none of Poplawski’s firearms were legal to begin with. Even Bush would have taken the firearms away from Poplawski. That is the objective truth.

In light of those facts, it makes no sense to posit that Poplawski’s actions were the result of a fear that Obama would “take his guns” because ANY politician would have taken away Poplawski’s firearms. He possessed his firearms illegally under current law; there is therefore no rational basis to suppose he would fear additional laws.

Now, the argument can be made that, since Poplawski was insane, he was not thinking rationally and was consequently still influenced by the murmurings of some fringe conservatives about potential firearms restrictions. This may well be so. However, it then brings us back to what I pointed out in the beginning of this post. Namely, that we don’t blame the Beatles for Charles Manson’s actions because Manson was insane and there’s no way to predict what will set off someone who is insane. That’s pretty much what insanity is, complete social unpredictability. An insane person can be set off by something as small as someone not signaling for a lane change on the freeway and it’s ridiculous to try to hold fringe conservatives (as a group) even partially responsible for the actions of a madman.