By bringing them both up in the same conversation, and suggesting there is some "middle ground", I would say they are being conflated.
Only problem boss. I'm not the one who brought up Palin and I never said they were related. I simply suggested that there was a rational, middle ground between the two partisan lines on both sides of the argument.
Originally Posted by gcoll
That guy gave an interview to Democracy Now, where he blamed the shooting on Beck, Palin, and Boehner among others. It was clear from that interview the guy is a bit off.
Then he gets himself arrested for threatening a member of the Tea Party. A few points to made off of this.
He was about to be made a hero by the far left. He was already being trumpeted a bit by the liberal blogs. So his 6 interviews on MSNBC next week are probably canceled as a result of this. Which is a bit of a shame, because if this guy was given a platform to keep talking, he'd reveal himself to be the nut that he is. That might have been fun to watch.
The second point. Nobody is blaming the rhetoric for causing the threat!!! They can't be consistent about anything! In the wake of the shooting there was all this rhetoric blaming Palin, the Tea Party, and all these other conservatives for the shooting. This guy gives an interview expressing (in a more extreme manner) that same idea, and then he threatens a Tea Party leader at a town hall. And they don't make any connection whatsoever between the two things. He is being treated as a lone nut, which is how he should be treated, but it's not how they'd be treating him if he was a conservative.
If Bill Clinton put out a map with gun crosshairs over conservatives and said the 2010 election was only the first shots fired and we needed to reload and take aim a the remaining conservatives and then a liberal lunatic went out and shot one of them, I'm sure the media would be criticizing him equally.
Last edited by North Country; 01-17-2011 at 09:52 PM.
Being wrong is one thing. But the inconsistency shows they are also dishonest.
I'll take someone honest that I disagree with, over someone dishonest that I agree with half the time.
So you'd rather the media charged every liberal with the task of condemning this guy? And then you would have done what? Been just as outraged as you were when the media linked Tea Partiers to "Obama Nazi" guy? Otherwise you'd be the dishonest one.
Think of it like this: I'll take someone who is rational half the time over someone who is rational none of the time.