[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Let me try to outline the connections for you.
- Because the Tea Party is a growing and real political threat, the entire administration – and most of the media – are actively trying to create the narrative that the Tea Party is racist & violent in order to discredit it as a legitimate movement. They keep repeating the (baseless) assertion - and yet, they cannot point to a single example of either; in fact, the few things they have pointed to have been absolutely fabricated.
[/quote]
Apparently perspective matters. Well I’ll grant you that the liberal-tilted media is disproportionately reporting on the trouble-makers in the Tea Party. All the media has jumped on the “promote the idea of that the Tea Party is a big movement” band-wagon. They are putting out polls asking absurdly worded questions, in an attempt to make the Tea Party look like a massive movement, when many of more thorough polls out, show the vast-vast majority of Tea Partiers and simply Republicans (most of whom when polled still give W. Bush a favorable rating, despite his spending). How big was that massive DC march on Tax Day? Millions? No, it was in the tens of thousands. All sides of the media are really making this thing BIG, either promoting it, or trying to scare us with it.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
2. Clinton has recently jumped into the fray (see his NYT piece) by warning about how the rhetoric and actions on the Right (Tea Party) are going to lead to outbreaks of violence.
Where, however, was Clinton when an actual film was made, distributed, and celebrated about Bush being assassinated? When doctored photos/signs depicted Bush with a bullet hole and blood streaming down his face? When calls for his death - publicly at rallies, on signs and verbally - took place on a daily basis? Et cetera. Can you imagine if the Tea Party was doing the same regarding Obama?? Seriously, think about that.
[/quote]
I never heard of it. I’ll look it up, but, the concern is that elected officials pandering to the fringe are adopting their language. I don’t recall any elected officials (maybe some city councilmen in SF or Berkley?) promoting, or calling for violence against Bush or the Federal government. That can’t be said for example, of Bachman, who is publicly advocating violence, and not paying your taxes.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
3. Meanwhile, while the left actively promotes and commits actual racism and violence, no one covers it. The assault in New Orlean’s on Jindal’s fundraiser (and her boyfriend) is just the latest example.
[/quote]
See here, you totally talked past my post: the people who are being accused of committing the act, and were present were self-proclaimed ANARCHISTS… that is a RIGHT WING PHILOSOPHY OF ZERO GOVERNMENT. Why do you keep calling them “the left” when they are on the extreme right wing?
If you don’t understand that that Anarchy (NO GOVERNMENT) is to the right of Libertarian (Only the hint of the necessary evil that is government), then you’re totally lost.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
4. Now, allow me to propose a thought experiment: suppose in this case the victims had been from the Left? And if the assailants were from the Tea Party?
What do you think would have happened? The NYT would have covered it; every morning show on MSNBC and the others would have endlessly looped clips about it. Obama (and Janet Napolitano, etc.) would have spoken about it. Tom Ashbrook probably would have dedicated three shows to the question of “whether the right wing poses a danger to the civil order,” etc. All of them would use the attack as an example of “right wing violent tendencies.” etc.
Anyone who cares about the truth - and presumably you do - should be outraged at this asymmetry.
[/quote]
Sure, that would have happened. Just like it would probably have received more attention if avowed members of an actual left-wing group had done this. If it had been Democrat organizers with official ties to the party, you bet your ass a huge deal would have been made about it.
But Anarchists are nut jobs, and we all know it. And it also doesn’t fit the Left vs. Right narrative to have a group of right-wing extremists attack Republican operatives… does that mean the Republican party would have to take a hard stance against right-wing extremists? Yeah, it would have. And they don’t want to do that, so instead of going ape-shit on the TV, railing against right-wing extremists who physically assault moderate Republicans, they’ve decided to keep it on the down low, and let the crazies on the right, too ignorant to figure out that Anarchists are also on the right, have at it on the internet.
