And I see a big difference between campaign rhetoric and patrolling polling places with clubs, openly fantasizing about assassinating Bush and openly regretting that an assassination attempt on Cheney failed.

If you want to play the blame game we can do that all day, but I'd rather blame the guy responsible and pray for the victims and their families.

P.S. I also find it odd that the people that made anti-government rhetoric popular are throwing a fit over it now. I was around in the 60's and 70's you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I also find it odd that the people that made anti-government rhetoric popular are throwing a fit over it now. I was around in the 60's and 70's you know.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... We put our pants on the same way each morning... We both like football... I'm sure we're very similar in other ways as well.. But, when it comes to the political stuff going on around us, we might as well be on different planets..

What YOU see as anti government rhetoric, I see as an invitation to gun violence.. Never the twain shall meet.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

What YOU see as anti government rhetoric, I see as an invitation to gun violence.. Never the twain shall meet.

---

First of all, I see it as free speech, which one Democrat is already proposing be limited. The "anti-government" meme is what's being bandied about in left-wing circles. I was also around for the Bush years, was it "an invitation to gun violence" then also?

Due to the fact the drive by media is cusiously NOT reporting on the Gunmans political affiliation... or has mentioned he was not a registered voter... is anyone wanting to take bets he was a registered democrat?

If he was a Republican that's ALL you would have been reading about.

P.S. The paper described the killer this morning as a "pot smoking loner." What should we make of that?

Quote:

---

I was also around for the Bush years, was it "an invitation to gun violence" then also?

---

Death of a President (2006) - IMDb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Death of a President (2006) - IMDb

---

Did you actually watch that movie?

Of course not !

Then you have no idea of the content except for what the right-wing blogs tell you. Here's some comments from the IMDB discussion board for it:

IMDb :: Boards :: Death of a President (2006) :: NOT 'left wing fantasy' or 'propaganda....

IMDb :: Boards :: Death of a President (2006) :: How many people discussing this movie a...

IMDb :: Boards :: Death of a President (2006) :: Not even about the assasination.

Does it not set it's premise on a fictionalized assassination of the then sitting President ?

From people who saw the movie:

Quote:

---

The film isn't even REALLY about an assassination of George W. Bush. It uses the assassination as a hypothetical device, through which the most pressing issues of contemporary America are explored. More important, it allows the exploration of these issues in a profoundly emotional way. The balance between security and civil liberties, and the war in Iraq are the most prevalent, and these two things have been done to death with cold, academic examinations. This film offers a much more personal, more emotional... more human angle to these issues.

---

So the answer is yes.

If you have reading comprehension issues.

I asked :
does it not set it's premise on a fictionalized assassination of the then sitting President ?
And you c/p
It uses the assasination as a hypothetical device,

So the answer to my question is yes. It sets it's premise on the assassination of the then sitting President.

Death of a President is a 2006 British mockumentary about the assassination of George W. Bush

If making such a movie about the sitting president doesn't have the potential to incite violence then I don't know what would.

I guess when the US are proponents of furthering a climate of hate you get what you wish for. Have fun carrying your weapons around out of fear and anger. We'll just watch on the sidelines and shake our heads.

Um... WE have the Constitutional RIGHT to own weapons, the Second Amendment for those who fear reading the constitution and bill of rights... When You, your wife or children get robbed, raped or mugged in your own home and wait for the police to arrive... we will just watch on the sidelines and shake our heads. Because it would be yet another preventible crime... facilitated by another Rights hater.

Wasn't Obama just tossing hate speech recently... by telling the Republicans to get in the back of the bus and shut up... not long after being told they weren't allowed to participate in the Socialized Health care bill they were literally locked out of during its creation.


Let one person Tell Obama to get to the back of the bus and shut up and then we would be hearing the Democrats screaming bloody murder.

I'm not running around in fear, are you? You act as if Canada has no crime, though the overall crime rates between the US and Canada are apparently not all that different. And I remind you that since Texas allowed concealed carry the violent crime rate dropped significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

“Get in Their Faces!”

“I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!”

“Hit Back Twice As Hard”

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose a$$ to kick.“

( Republican victory would mean) “hand to hand combat”

“Punish your enemies.”

“I'm itching for a fight.”

---

Hello again, tom:

NONE of the examples you use talk about GUN PLAY. NONE of them! The problem I have with the statements I've cited, is they talk EXCLUSIVELY about gun play... If somebody had hit the congresswoman "back twice as hard", it wouldn't be the story it is... But, this guy DIDN'T hit back. He SHOT her with a GUN.

There is a major distinction between the two kinds of rhetoric. It's apparently, a distinction you are UNABLE to make. I don't know why. It's NOT difficult... One remedy calls for FIGHTING... The other calls for SHOOTING... It's NOT rocket science.

excon

I still bet the Gunman was a registered Democrat... otherwise the Drive by media would be making a big deal about his party affiliation, they do it EVERY other time its someone that doesn't follow party orders from the DNC on how the country WILL be run. Damned what the population might think. Their strange silence on the subject tells me they are avoiding it for some reason.