http://gothamist.com/2011/01/1...

I think we all need to realize that the extremists on both sides can be blamed for this, if only because the anonymity of the internet and radio allows for much stronger sentiments than we would be able to get away with if our identities were known. (Just look at any Gothamist comment section!)

Everything gets blown out of proportion, right and left alike, and we turn against each other instead of realizing we can disagree without violence and name calling.

But, that's just not as interesting.

Like all that Violent Rhetoric from the Democrats?
Can you give us examples?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomb...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q...

Google: Bush Hitler

You are honestly so blinded by your ideology that you can't tell the difference? Those are from the fringe and not embraced by either the left-wing leadership or the mainstream. The right-wing leadership on the other hand, not only endorses, but is often the source of extremist views. I guess you haven't noticed that you are completely and utterly alone here in defending them. Not even ides of march is speaking up for them.

Palin's a private citizen, albeit an influential one. Same with Beck.

I'm not defending Palin and Beck as much as reminding everyone that the onus should really be on this kid.

To me, it seems like Democrats are trying to capitalize on a tragedy, which kind of disgusts me.

"The left raged against George W. Bush, hanging him in effigy, depicting him being guillotined and showing him in one movie being assassinated." - http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pi...

Even Olbermann admits he has used violent rhetoric in the past.

I agree it's not as pervasive and loud as much of the violence we hear from the right today, but you cannot say this is a one-sided issue. It is not something exclusive to or owned by any one group.

I think extremism can take many forms and can cause people on either side of ANY issue to become heated and overblown - especially on a forum like the internet where our rage and anonymity can allow us to vent to the point of hyperbole.

When people can post all their craziness on the internet and have it be supported by and find others that are just as crazy, movements can get out of control that wouldn't have even started if not for the ease of technology.

Oddly: not any elected members of the Democratic party that use violent rhetoric.

When did Olbermann use Violent Rhetoric like above?

I don't know, but he apologized for it. I'm not going to wade through his videos when he himself admitted to it.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you'd see that attacking the "democratic party" isn't even my point, especially since I never once used that phrase. Everyone is so quick to assume people are attacking them that they have to be defensive instead of listening and having a logical discussion.

Marcy, I'm sorry, I'm not attacking you and if it seems that way, I do apologize.

I think this equivalence is wrong. The Radical Right has inflamed people and encouraged nuts with their violent rhetoric. No one else has.

Point taken. However, many of those I grew up with identify with the right and would take me to task for not including the left. There was a lot of vitriol during the Bush years, but nothing disgusted me more than what the 2008 campaign was turned into by the radical right and fear-mongering.

It's just sad that the silent majority of the country can't identify with either party at the moment since everything is so extremist.

And thank you for clarifying. No harm, no foul.

O, I agree, but I think the vitriol from the Left did not come from elected officials.

That's the major difference, IMO. Elected officials in the GOP are inflaming the situation. Case in point, the GOP who encourage "Tea Party" (being nice) rhetoric.

Glad we cleared that up.
;)

How is the current administration extremist?

"… For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action.”
–Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010.

Hey, JDS, how about linking to stories about how this guy was a left-wing lunatic who hated that Giffords moderated her views and became a "fake." Oh, of course not.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

If this were the other way around and he was a right-wing lunatic, I'm sure the post would be written differently

Any liberal that is using this tragedy to advance their agenda that the Tea Party and conservatives are somehow murderous because of one man's actions needs to have their head examined. Grow up. Your desperate attack does nothing to advance the debate and makes you look as ignorant as some of the Fox News that you skewer. The fact of the matter is that throughout history, people of all mental states, mental capacities, races, ethnicities, and motives have committed violent acts against innocent people; each one is a tragedy in its own right.

It's remarkable that this woman was shot in the head and seems to be hanging on. Great quote from Kimble, JDS. Life is a game of inches.

Big sigh. First of all, that's a different person, it's not Loughner - "BlueBoy" was a Giffords volunteer who did indeed post some ranty things on DailyKos about how she was "dead to me." For a few hours on Saturday people thought this guy did it.

Of course he regrets it now -- he's since written "I made a VERY poor choice of words...I fully apologize."

Here's another blog story about him.

Partisans are really throwing their backs out trying to find something as obviously irresponsible and crass as Palin's target map or Angles "second amendment remedies." It's silly and desperate - the mainstream public can easily see this stuff for what it is, and digging up some out-of-context Obama quote or some blogging fanatic isn't going to change that.

(Not to mention all this convoluted "if THIS guy were really a Republican and he said the same thing but he was saying it about jews then YOU would have said this but INSTEAD you said..." shuuuuuut uuuuuup. That's not going to work either.)

How the fuck did you come to your conclusion from such an obscure passage ? All indications are that Loughner had no political agenda nor any discernible ideology. His ramblings (similar to yours) were incoherent and indicative of a mentally unstable person.

I linked to a story (and there are others) that reports how he was at one time a stalker/supporter of Giffords.

And to say I'm as unstable as he is kind of goes to show how disingenuous you are.

Yeah, you definitely have him confused with BlueBoy. Loughner was never a volunteer for Giffords. He apparently thought she was "fake" because he despised anybody who couldn't follow his crazy gibberish.

Ah my apologies.