there are people, on both the left and the right, who are just looking for an excuse to whack someone who disagrees with them. By pointing your finger toward one side doesn't mean those on the other side don't exist.

And this Democratic congressman IS a moron.

demonstrations, for any violent acts? No matter what the signs may say, doesn't seem like there's been any violence. I'd say that's just as a legitimate story as what the Senator from MA said.

Indiana State Deputy Attorney General: "Use Live Ammunition."

You still want to play this game of finger pointing?

"The point was don't lecture the Tea Party and then call for blood."

is targeted by some liberal democrats, place a bull-eye or cross-hair on his/her picture and district, and that conservative is shot. Then we will see if anyone on the right makes a similar claim as some on the left have done regarding rhetoric leading to violence against Giffords.

A democratic Congressman is saying that it's time for unions to get on the street and get a little bloody.

This is not some anonymous blogger or a private individual with a sign at a a mass rally.  It's a United States Congressman getting as close to urging blood shed in a literal way as is possible.

I guess those Tea Party folk are just beyond the pale when it comes to rhetoric.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary

I have always said there were nuts on both sides.

I also always said that symbolic rhetoric is symbolic.

It was one side that recently got so upset about rhetoric that was potentially inflammatory, even thought the language they complained about was pretty obviously symbolic and used by BOTH sides, lie "cross-hair" images.

That said, calls for things to get bloody are about as close to incitement as you can get.
Furthermore, as I said, when the Dems were crying a river in Tuscon they were holding up signs of anonymous people in rallies or lone blogs on the net.

For a U.S. Congressman to use even more inflammatory languages raises the question of where are the voices that decired such language, starting with the White House?

Am I that inarticulate that you don't understand what I am saying.  I have never said that the rhetoric leads to violence.  The fact that there have been no arrests has nothing to do with what I said, because I didn't say the rhetoric causes it. Never have.

I have said that the Dems crying alligator tears about how rhetoric contributes was silly then for two reasons:  First, on the merits I didn't believe it. Second, their rhetoric was very similar, but it was okay for them.

My post now is not to claim the language will cause violence.  The point was don't lecture the Tea Party and then call for blood.

My second point was that had to be the most directly inflammatory, so don't go "Cross hairs, cross hairs, evil Sarah with cross hairs."

Again, and again, and again: I don't begrudge the rhetoric on either side, claiming it leads to violence.

I was not finger pointing at the rhetoric, per se.

It is the Cry-me-a-river of the left AS IF THEY NEVER DID IT.

You can point to the right doing it, but that is irrelevant to my point.  My point was until a montha ago everyone did it, and all of a sudden the left went High and Might on the Moral High Road of Polite Conversation and Debate.

The fact that the slink to the gutter is the two-faced nature.  The fact that someone else may be in the gutter doesn't have anything to do with the two sided nature of "You bad, nasty Sarah. How can you say something like that?"

Yes, I will finger point - not at the rhetoric, but at the two-faces of those who engage in it, and denounce it, or those who denounce it when it is from one side only. Like the White House.  If the White house really wants civil debate, they should call off their own dogs.

My point wasn't that there was hypocrisy on both sides.  (There may be, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying, or trying to say.)

Prior to Tuscon, no one said that rhetoric led to violence.  (By "no one," I mean, no one with any stature.  There always "someone" in a nation of 350,000,000 who will say anthing.)

No one on the right ever looked at the DNC website with cross hairs and talk of battleground states and said, "This is dangerous rhetoric that leads to violence."  

It was the Dems that looked at the images after Tuscon and said the lack of civility leads to violence.  It was the Dems that made a big deal out of it.  That is where the hypocrisy lies - suddendly calling for an end to inflammatory rhetoric as dangerous and then engaging in it to a new level.

When that happens, there may very well be a two-faced reaction from the right. Of course, we will have to wait and see, and hopefully it will never happen.

However, the fact that the shoe is not yet on the other foot does not make it irrelevant when one side is engaging in hypocrisy.  That stands on its own, even if the opportunity hasn't arisen for the othe side.

When it does, if the reaction you expect happens, then a plague on both their houses.  But that doesn't mean that one house hasn't displayed the symptoms of the plague and that those symptoms can't be commented on.