Conservatives: Can we agree that Timothy McVeigh was influenced by right-wing extremism? Or do you want to defend and excuse his behavior too?
Possible political campaign slogans: "We're going to shoot our opponents in the head--but with ballots, not bullets." "We're going to shoot them until they're dead--politically speaking." Because this kind of rhetoric doesn't inflame or influence anyone, right?
I guess all the death threats Obama has received are just "metaphorical" death threats, right? "We want Obama to die and burn in hell, but not really"? I guess the Secret Service can ignore this kind of conservative rhetoric because nobody would ever act on his deep-seated hatred of liberals, minorities, and non-believers. Am I right, people?
News flash: Conservative researchers have determined that no one in Nazi Germany was influenced by ideological hate speech. Incredibly, 80 million mentally unstable people with a propensity for ethnically-oriented violence just happened to gather in one spot. What are the odds?!
It seems impossible, yet conservatives assure us that ideology can't motivate anyone to act. Amazing!
Said one Austrian neighbor, "Those 80 million Germans were always quiet and kept to themselves. They seemed like good boys and girls. I had no idea they'd turn into mass murderers."
Palin's "blood libel"
Sarah Palin opened a whole new avenue of mockery with her defense of her bullseye on Gabrielle Giffords:
Sarah Palin's charge of 'blood libel' spurs outcry from Jewish leaders
By James Oliphant
"The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation,'" said Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice. "It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out of line."
Sarah Palin had a chance with her statement on the Tucson tragedy to show voters she's equal to the demands of the presidency. But her video reflected her chosen role as lightning rod of the right.
By Doyle McManus
Consider that assertion for a moment: Palin says her words could not possibly have created a climate of violence, but claims her opponents' words are certain to.
What was missing in her statement? Any acknowledgment, even implicit, that anyone on her own side had ever stepped over the line as well.
News flash: Liberals are considering calling the Tea Party's use of the term "death panels" the worst "blood libel" since Hitler. "We'd do it," said one leftist, "but we understand the term's significance, unlike stupid conservatives."
"My accusation that liberals want to kill grandma is totally different from their accusation that I want to kill Gabrielle Giffords," said a whining Sarah Palin. "I put a bullseye on her, so I really mean it.
"Or is it the other way around...?" she continued, looking like a deer in the headlights. "It's so hard to tell without the answers written on my hand."
"When we called them death panels," said a teary-eyed Palin as her presidential chances went up in a puff of smoke, "we thought it was just a cute nickname. We didn't expect anyone to take us seriously. Everyone knows this kind of rhetoric can't change anyone's opinions."
Have I made the point clear? Or do I need to continue mocking the hatemongers' denial of fomenting the violence they fomented?
For typical examples of the hatemongers' rhetoric, see Conservatives Attack "Ugly" Native Prayer and Obama's UN "Coup" Is "Chilling."
Below: Obama prepares to help his brown-skinned tribal brothers by giving away the US, according to conservative hatemongers who say he's a traitor, a terrorist, and the anti-Christ.