Winging Politicians and The Left-Wing Blame Game

Let's start with the statistics from Saturday's brutal attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others, as this is the most important thing to keep in mind:

Rep Giffords is still severely injured, but is has as positive an outlook as can be inspected.  She was one of 20 people shot.  Among the 6 dead are Judge John Roll, as well as a 9-year-old girl, , who was born on 9/11/2001.  President Obama ordered flags to half-staff and held a moment of silence at 11am today.  Congress has tabled this week's planned legislative slate to deal with the tragedy.  And people on the left and right have come together on this attack on Americans and America.

If there was any "good' news that has emerged since the dust settled and we got the body count from the attack in Tucson, it would be that the murderous piece of shit, Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be sincerely nuts.  As in put him in a rubber room for a couple decades nuts.  As in tinfoil hat-wearing rambling insanity nuts.  So I hope that if he's truly mentally ill, they put him away for a long time, maybe with a bit of shock therapy, and if not, may there be some sweet police brutality, followed by some good sweet jailhouse luuuuuuuv.

Which means the "good" news is that he wasn't a defined right-wing nutjob.  And that, as my last post highlighted, was what I feared.

However, that didn't stop some people on the left from blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and all of the "hate speech" on the right for this nutscrew opening fire.

Some specific examples of this (source for italics):

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz warns that while "we cannot allow incidences like this intimidate" we still must remember that "words matter."

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik used a nationally televised press conference to condemn the tone of political discourse in his state. He charged that public debate is now "vitriolic rhetoric," which has rendered Arizona "the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Dupnik suggested that such rhetoric can have deadly consequences.

Then there's the American Traitor Bitch, Hanoi Jane Fond, who tweeted this bullshit:
Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence.

And followed that with more bullshit:

@glenbeck guilty too. Shame. It must stop!
And:
Violence against 1 woman is violence against every woman. So let all women commit 2 stopping this radical violence. NOW #VAW #tucsonshooting 
And:
It isn't enough that Palin just removed the map of Giffords district with gun crosshairs off her website. She holds responsibility
And:
@SarahPalinUSA holds responsibility. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party 
And:
Here's the danger: once a society starts killing its politicians and judges, only the corrupt and brutal can or are willing to rule.

The upshot of all this, and the Daily Kos kooks rambling senselessly, and some of my lib blogger buddies on Facebook venting mindlessly (who just dropped in my opinion of them), and others on my Twitter feed retweeting crap (although I can credit, not all the libs I follow jumped on this idiot bandwagon), is that it's all the right-wing "hate" rhetoric that drives these nutjobs to start killing.  This despite the lack of evidence.  In many of these cases, the nutjobs turn out to actually like cuddling up to the Communist Manifesto (or at least keeping it in their library next to their copy of Helter Skelter and Catcher in the Rye).  Which, applying the blithering lack of logic that I've been hearing from the moonbats of the Left, means that they are to blame, since they churn out just as much "hateful' vitriol....

No.  The fact is that nutjobs are nutjobs.  Whatever they hear, they have to transform into insanity.  And we can't start sacrificing our freedom of speech when 99.9999999999999999999% of the people aren't going to hear it and decide to fucking shoot somebody.  So let's drop this dumb-assed idea that we can blame anyone who says anything heated for anything some assblock who isn't following the explicit directions or clear intentions of said person.  Because we'd all be guilty as fuck.

So tell me where the line is?  Tell me what no one can say?  And then, when I give you assloads of examples of the left saying the same kinds of shit, as well as perfect examples of just as heated vitriol directed at the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson administrations (with no resulting attacks, deaths and only one unconstitutional attempt to squash free speech), then you can shove the whole idea that this is unprecedented hate by the Tea Party that caused the tragedy up your ass.  Where your head obviously rests.

The fact is, we have always had heated, angry, divisive, and borderline threatening (but not clearly threatening) rhetoric.  We have always had one side calling the other side everything but lemony fresh, wishing death, dismemberment, and occasional forays with farm animals.  And we have always had a few people, some nuts, some ideological, trying to snuff politicians, and occasionally borrowing from the otherwise sane rhetoric of the day.  Nothing about this has really changed in our history, except the names and the specifics. 

So, for you cowardly partisan hacks who have to take a tragedy and immediately turn it into a reason to tell us on the right to shut the fuck up because our speech is evil, I dare you spineless fucks to comment.  Tell me that anyone's rhetoric (short of explicitly advocating violence (ex: "someone should shoot that bastard")) is inciting violence.  I guarantee that if I combed through every angry thing you said, I could find all kinds of "hateful speech" that could "incite violence." I  triple-fucking-dog-dare you to display your hypocrisy and zeal for censorship for everyone to ridicule. Bring it!

Because when we start forbidding speech, then ideas aren't far behind.  And then comes forbidding people.  And boy, can I come up with some juicy examples there....