you're purposely ignoring the reality of the points in the post - none of the quotes you cite show someone advocating actual physical violence against someone with an opposing viewpoint. Wanting to jail someone is not equal to saying someone ought to be shot in any way, shape or form.

And the list of 18 whackos were of people were committed ACTUAL acts of violence or were caught BEFORE they could commit violent acts that they were planning.

The right-wing effort to avoid blame for violence, which we certainly see at work in these comments--by saying extremists on the left and the right are equally guilty of inflammatory and murderous rhetoric--is completely dishonest.

There is no prominent figure on the left equivalent to Ann Coulter, who has said that a baseball bat is the most effective way to talk to liberals, and who has said that the real debate about Bill Clinton should not have been whether to impeach him, but whether to assassinate him, and whose only regret about the Oklahoma City bombing was that McVeigh did not set off his truck bomb in front of the New York Times building.

There is no prominent figure on the left equivalent to Bill O'Reilly who has said that liberal bloggers should be dealt with with a hand grenade, that liberal talk show hosts should be put in chains, and suggested that al Qaeda attack San Francisco.

There is no prominent figure on the left equivalent to Glen Beck who jokes about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, compares Al Gore to Hitler, and equates immigration reform with burning American citizens alive.

There is no prominent figure on the left equivalent to talk show host Michael Savage who thinks "smallpox in a blanket" (which he says, without a hint of disapproval, that we used against Cherokees) is actually too good for liberals.

There is no prominent figure on the left equivalent to Rush Limbaugh who jocularly advocates killing all but two liberals on every campus, leaving those two as a reminder.

Limbaugh and all the rest of them, when called on such stuff, will become indignant and say "Can't you liberals recognize political humor? I was just (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) 'joking' after all."

So basically we have the following situation: Republican extremists advocate, overtly or by suggestion, the killing of people they disagree with. Liberals reply, mildly, as liberals do, "you shouldn't be saying stuff like that." Republicans then declare, "Hey, now THAT'S poisonous rhetoric. THAT'S a blood libel. That's wrong. And we should put an end such poisonous rhetoric, both from the left and right."

Glenn Beck's on tv every day. It's been proven that 3 whackjobs were inspired/incited by Beck to go out and try to kill somebody. And O'Reilly's constant demonizing of Dr. Tiller certainly played a part in the man having to wear a bulletproof vest every day - even on Sundays when he was an usher at church. Still didn't save his life, did it?

Heaven forbid that you watch Rachel Maddow - all those facts she displays every show, used as foundations for her opinions, can't have Beep facing the potential of having to question anything he believes in, can we?

(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

7 April 2009

(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

The full report here: http://www.fas.org/i...int/rightwing.pdf


Notice the word Rightwing in the report's title? The Department of Homeland Security, working with the FBI, saw how the current environment, like a perfect storm, came together to create the fertile ground that's producing these violent nutjobs.