Why? So that the hard left can use it to their political advantage? This kind of thing could have happened to a rep on either side. Both sides need to look within and find a way to lower the rhetoric instead of continuing to manipulate situations to point a finger the other way. The level of anger and rage in this country can not be faulted to one person. There are way too many individuals, groups, events, and situations that have led to such a hostile political and non political environment.  Over time we will get a glimpse of what this kid may have been exposed to and what has happened in his life over time that made him snap this way and how he fell through the cracks.

Sarah Palin has nothing to answer for. Anyone who claims so is just another despicable vulture committing blood libel. Qualified props to Matt Lauer, no friend of the right and someone who usually makes my teeth hurt, for taking one of the vultures to task this morning on Today. Had to do a double-take. But can't rule out it being just a clever setup, since the come-back was that regardless of the shooter's motives this is an issue we must confront, yada yada. Much like it didn't matter the Rathergate memos were fake, they've got a job to do and they're gonna do it.

The concept of 'collective culpability' underpinning their argument is complete bullshit. That is simply an untenable assumption and insulting to all responsible people of free will.

Great description!

If you are pointing to my reply you have seriously misunderstood it. In layman's terms what I mean is that there are way too many things going on in the world and so many sources of media that you can't simply point a figure at any individuals (other than the shooter). In other words this guy took millions of pieces of info from people, tv, music, the web, whatever, etc. and his brain processed it in a seriously dysfunctional way.

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.