Don't forget Joe Stack, Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber and whoever sent all that anthrax though the mail in 2001.

McVeigh was far right wing (probably closer to Loughners cause than others) while the Unibomber was far left.

Thing is, all this is pure speculation until we find out the motives behind the shooting. Chances are is that it has nothing to do with any of this media rhetoric and that the left media is using it as an excuse to hold the right to account for what has been a build up of implicit violent speech by the right. And why not? Shame it takes such a cataclysmic event for debate to occur.

Cenk is one of the best... I almost never disagree with his viewpoint.

Laughable.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Don't forget Joe Stack, Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber and whoever sent all that anthrax though the mail in 2001.


I think that's the first time I've ever heard anarchism described as conservative.

I suspect that because some of you are heavily invested in your political identity, that you forget the majority of people are not. Just because the target of the attack was a Democrat does not mean that was the reason she was targeted, nor does it mean the attacker was a Republican.

Cenk mentions John Hinckley, the guy who shot Reagan; he's a perfect example. He didn't give a shit that Reagan was a Republican; he had originally been stalking Carter. He wanted to shoot a President because he was convinced it would impress Jodie Foster and that she would love him.

Calls to tone down the violent rhetoric, metaphorical or not, are welcome. However, by making the assumption that this shooting was caused by that rhetoric and tying your entire argument to it, you run the risk of having your argument thrown out if it turns out Loughner just really hates bleached-blondes or sailors' wives.