Smoothseas -

That was referring to Bahu's post and the general content of all the finger-pointing going on following the massacre.

Of course, all of us are the product of millions of experiences in the context of our genetic make-up.  He appears to have had both a defective genetic make-up and lots of bad experiences.

That you can't point a finger at any individuals (other than the shooter) has always been the case and always will be.  Accomplices to and co-conspirators in a crime there may be, but they are also individuals, not ideas and certainly not a 'climate', unless you live in the world of repugnant moral relativism presently occupied by the craven & shameful left.  The demonization of those who disagree as 'enemies of civil society' (only so as the self-designated 'good people' define them, of course) is a time-honored tactic of those who would impose their will on others.

There is just as much of this on the right as well. So maybe you should learn to judge individuals as individuals and learn not to point fingers in defense of pointed fingers.

Ah, but that's just it.  Only one side is attempting to publicly judge a group (rather than individuals).  They want to effectively indict a class of people (whom they define), and certain individuals explicitly, as accessories to murder.  To 'deftly pin this on them'.  There's a difference between that and my observation & assessment of their behavior.  I'm not attempting to smear them with something they had nothing to do with.  I'm voicing my opinion about the people actually doing the smearing, not attempting to stifle their political beliefs or speech through guilt by totally unfounded (and irrational) association.

That is incorrect. You as well are applying to a group what certain individuals are saying. People do speak for themselves. If somebody points a finger at somebody who has the same viewpoint as me I don't automatically think that they are talking about me.

They are simply speaking their mind just as you are.

You're being a bit obsequious.  They are doing more than simply 'speaking their mind' - they are trumpeting accusations of accessory to murder and advocating stifling the political speech of completely innocent people, people who had nothing whatsoever to do with an unspeakable act of violence by a deranged man, but who simply disagree with them.  The political equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, to borrow a metaphor they love to use as justification for their calls to stifle conservative talk radio, among other things.  A very large number of people on the left are doing so, making them by definition a 'group'.  But I'm not denouncing anyone who hasn't made such public accusations.  And the ghouls making the unfounded accusations have the right to 'speak their minds' - I'm not calling for limits on their speech or any other right, rights I once took an oath to defend.

That's a bit extreme. Maybe there are some in the blogoshere or on radio doing this, I haven't seen it but it may be there. I haven't seen in the media or from any politician or any mainstream political group that anyone other than the shooter should be arrested.

They are simply advocating to step the rhetoric down a bit.

These are Roger Ailes words:

"shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually"

I certainly don't believe he is advocating stifling free speech.

Many are simply saying to be a little more responsible about what they say and how they say it because sometimes it may have unintended consequences.

Yes, left-wing extremists said horrible things about Bush, but they only came from fringe people. They didn't come from left-wing politicians and left-wing media people. They didn't come from the people who the fringe people listen to.

Roger Ailes as much as admitted that people on his network have been going too far.

Smoothseas - you are being disingenuous.  Arrested?  not under current law - but they are already proposing laws to circumvent or abrogate the 1st Amendment so that they can arrest you.  One wants to make any derogatory remarks about congressmen be a crime.  ANother wants to silence anyone who does not agree with them - and these are the congressmen doing it - on the left.

They have gone beyond stating an opinion to proposing locking up innocent people for the simple crime of not thinking the way they do.

Better go back and re-read your Olbermann and matthews playbook.  You will find that you are flat out wrong. Roger Ailes only said that they were being too opinionated - not that they were calling for violence like Matthews and Olbermann and the rest of the left does.  You are 100% wrong - and consistent and petty since you cannot stand to read dissent.

You just cannot ban it when it is not your blog.

And #2 - I challenge you.  To find any incident from any rightwing person you insinuate (or Sheriff Dubnick) calling for violence on the left.  Go ahead and print it if you dare.  Disagreeing and calling someone stupid is not calling for their death.  The latter is reserved for the lunatics at du.org, the Puffington Host ("She is Dead to me"), moron.org and of course Michael Moron.org

Of course not. I'm not the one who said :

So really now who is being disingenuous?

If you're talking about Robert Brady that is just one individual with a knee-jerk idea.  Do you really think something that isn't inline with current precedent regarding the legal definition of assault or aggravated assault (and the amount of evidence required to prove intent) will pass judicial muster or even congressional muster? Maybe I'm just not as paranoid or maybe I believe that in the end the court system will let freedom of speech reign and you don't. I don't know why you feel threatened by this type of thing and I don't.

The full context of his remarks (emphasis mine):

In no way does that imply he agrees with the MSM narrative.  He was just telling 'his guys' to avoid taking the bait.

Oh no. Bush got bashed by more than just the fringe. Some criticism was warranted but a lot wasn't.

No he did the right thing on this one. He said lower the rhetoric a bit and use more intelligence in their debate. Hopefully the others follow suit.

Was surfing the web checking out the temperature of stuff and I'm astonished to find liberals still clinging to the notion that 'right wing vitriol' or 'a climate of right wing hate' is somehow responsible for this tragedy. They are about as ginned up as I've ever seen them with this belief. I guess its ok for them to have their beliefs no matter how fantastic or ridiculous, but a child was murdered there, so it is rather detestable for them to continue carrying on like this attempting to blame the American right. Its a tremendous insult.

You are technically correct they are not arresting them TODAY.  However, the laws being proposed and the restrictions being proposed would allow the arrests and we are not only talking about Brady - but Clyburn.  That is how you are being disingenuous.

As for passing congressional muster - Obamacare did - where a precedent is trying to be set to penalize people for NOT participating in interstate commerce.  As for judicial muster - McCain/Feingold passed and has yet to be fully over turned by the courts.  Indeed, Breyer has already said that the LETTER of the constitutional is not constitutional, so you cannot count on anything rational coming out of the courts.  You and I would say "Yes, that is unconstitutional", but would the courts?  I will not bet anything on it (for now perhaps, but not in the future).

They are doubling down.  The reason the heat is still up is because most are not buying it.  Expect it to continue even as those in power get heat from regular people to can it since their position is totally unsupportable.  I read one blog where the author called it "well oiled" given how quickly the meme started.  I think that is a good term for it.  But at the same time, it is tired and over used.  Unlike 98, this time the right is hitting back and hitting back hard - with facts!  Showing that when identifiable, the perpetrators are almost always leftists, not right wing.

I'm not being disingenuous about this either. Up to this point the only things I've heard from Clyburn is that he doesn't think he should be subject to having his junk grabbed at the airport like the rest of us and he wants the fairness doctrine reinstated. Fact is these guys are scared and I don't blame them. They've had their offices vandalized and get a continuous stream of threats. In my opinion they helped cause their own problems but overall I think Obama might be right in that when people are scared they don't think rationally. Overall these guys can try what they want but I think in the end free speech will prevail. The Dems don't control the house and the courts seem to rule in favor of free speech so I really don't know what people are crying about.

Which is a restriction on the first amendment.  And while not new, a direct knee jerk to the talking points.  There is Slaughter as well.  The list grows longer by the hour. 

Again, when you made the statement, you were technically correct in saying "to this point".  However, as you can see now, the inevitability of the further calls for removing our freedoms was not an "if", but just a "when".

can;'t stand the heat?  Get out of the kitchen.  The attacks on members of congress is far lower (rate wise) then the attacks on a citizen in a big city.  And they are SUPPOSED to be PROTECTING us.

Again, except in the case of McCain/Feingold.  So I do not trust them to rule in favor of any of our rights.  The only way to win the game is to not play as they say, and in the case of rights, the only way to ensure them is to make sure that congress does not start to remove them.

You watch.  Wanna take bets tonight's speech will be hailed by the much of the MSM (again) as the greatest presidential speech since the Gettysburg Address?  At least since Clinton's 'deft pinning' of the OKC bombing on the right?

Doesn't matter what he says, Brian Williams will weep and praise him for his 'healing powers'.

Don't forget Matthew's tingling legs.

That's it in a nutshell. So I'll let them scream and yell, and let them politic like they always do, and I'll sit here and laugh at it like I always do. But I won't let them whip me into a frenzy because this type of thing will happen again.  Maybe the talking heads will realize that they should be talking about mental healthcare because that is really the issue behind this.

If Obama wants to "heal' or console me he can resign and get on a plane back to Kenya or Indonesia or wherever he actually comes from.

you will - I do not trust them to be so rational.  I guess I just do not trust politicians (any of them) to just not screw things up given the option of doing nothing right, or something wrong.

I do not trust politicians either, but I have faith in our system. I have seen this kind of thing over and over and over. 

Speech impressions:

Initially fairly good impression overall.  I'm always emotional at first and only later look objectively at content.

Fairly creepy aura to the whole thing; too much campaign rally & theatrics, especially the ending crescendo.

Nappy & Holder reading bible passages?

UofA President lobbying for a job; sounded like David Brooks introducing BO.

Of course, he couldn't NOT go there, simply accepting 'vitriol' as an established fact; but I highly doubt any of the usual suspects will acknowledge that he was talking about them, or that they will abandon their efforts to silence their opposition.

The words otherwise were mostly right, especially the call to live up to Christina Green's expectations; I just never got the feeling he really believed any of them.

He seemed more actor on a stage (something he does seemingly instinctively) than compassionate human, especially during the odd bit about how 'shortly after I visited' Gabby opened her eyes; I couldn't help but think from his demeanor that he thought his visit had had something to do with that.

When I learned how the whole thing had been 'branded' and they'd handed out blue logo T-shirts to everyone, I got nauseated.

Yeah the theatrics were apparent. And it wasn't like the partisans were interspersed here and there, it must have been the whole place. Normal people might greet Eric Holder with a smattering of polite applause, but nothing as thunderous as what we saw. I'm glad Obama took a few seconds to talk about the victims.