You really do make this embarrassingly easy.

Yeah, always makes me feel dirty using that line, too, but the man was a masterful performer; one could almost believe him when he said he never traded arms for hostages, at least until the moment he admitted doing just that after it was proven.

Um... which black ministers endorsed Ike over JFK in 1960? Not that it matters; Nixon was the candidate actually RUNNING that year, and he got the important endorsements: From Allan Dulles and his "plumbers" in November of '63, April and June of '68 and twice more in '72. Speaking of Dixiecrats, if you want to talk about where they began bolting the Democratic Party, it was when Truman desegregated the military back in the '40s, but they did not JOIN REPUBLICANS and provide their subsequent boll weevil victories until Nixons GOP seduced them with the Southern Strategy in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern Strategy is well documented by senior GOP campaigners rather than any liberals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy

Loughner has remained conspicuously silent about any political loyalties, but painting McVeigh as ANYTHING but a far right conservative is an act of sheer desperation. Let us just see: Anti-tax gun nut disciplined by the Army for buying a White Power T-shirt from the Klan, and wrote to a friend before his terrorist murders that " I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves." Yeah, he was a real godless commie liberal, alright.

As far as "until the last time a president was killed only Republicans has been," Lincoln was so liberal he started a war to prevent peaceful legal secession (rather than to affirm the Fifth Amendment right not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and assassinated by A CONSERVATIVE. The other cases were one Radical Republican murdering another because he did not get a political job, and yet another Republican murdering one. Notwithstanding the last assassins membership in the Republican Party, his anarchism makes him undeniably liberal, and he seems to have been largely incited by Emma Goldman, who published defenses of him after the assassination. I guess that makes Palin the far rights modern day version of Goldman, and no less reprehensible for representing the opposite end of the political spectrum. I have no reservation condemning Palin and Goldman for the same incitement to political murder; how 'bout you...?


Loughner has declare no affiliation, beyond his stated hatred of the liberal Democratic House member he badly wounded while trying to murder.

Argument already shredded; he was a racist Army vet who worked at gun shows and ranted about the evils of taxes and socialism, then attacked the government.


The guy ATTACKED THE IRS; that and his anti-government rants sound more actions of the anti-tax Tea Party than any liberal. He did endorse a few other liberal principles amid many conservative ones though, so I do not put him entirely within either sides camp.


On what basis do you claim he is liberal? Fanatically religious members of the military do not exactly scream, "LIBERAL."


I had to look that up, but see nothing about it indicating the woman is a liberal. Is it because she taught at a university? Like Gingrich?


She is doing so well she is retiring and one of her aides is running in a special election to complete her term. You know who first suggested Palins crosshairs could get Giffords shot? Gabrielle Giffords, BEFORE the shootings. If Palin wants to play the victim and accuse her of "blood libel" AFTER the shootings, she should do it to the womans face. While the Duke and Sharpton incidents were reprehensible, they were not violence, so I do not know what relevance they have except as another attempt to accuse people like Gabrielle Giffords of "victimizing" those who incite people to murder them. Truth is not libel, but blaming ones victims IS shameful.


The Weather Underground is guilty of violence, but not murder; they thought it was OK to destroy property as long as they ensured no one was killed, which would not be true even had they managed to avoid killing, but they did not. I neither excuse nor condone them, but they were not inciting murder, deliberately or otherwise. More importantly, their actions and the Unabombers combined are still dwarfed by politically motivated right wing murders, attempted murders and incitement to murder.


Personally, I agree with the Founding Fathers that secession by PEACEFUL means ought to be legitimate, but since the GOP was founded on the notion it is not, any Republican advocating it now is advocating treason. Consequently, accusing others of treason in the same breath is hypocritical; regardless, advocating vigilante violence against them would be as unconscionable to the Founding Fathers as it is to me.


No, I think you guys still have the market cornered on that one; my argument is simply that people who dislike the rights protected by the Constitution should either amend it or leave rather than treasonously ignore it except when convenient. Fortunately, the First Amendment does not protect inciting mob violence, and consequently no one—left, right or upside down—has any "right" to do so.