Conservatives have gleefully politicized the terrible murder of two New York police officers. Many straws have been grasped as they try to link up the act of senseless violence to talking openly about your biracial son's feelings or chanting "hands up, don't shoot" at a rally.

Joe Scarborough, a conservative pundit that dominates three important hours of "liberal" MSNBC's daily air time, concern trolled at length about this imaginary link between talking openly and honestly about racial problems in America and a senseless act of violence by a crazy criminal who still managed to get his hands on a gun but we won't talk about gun control in America because... well, because we just won't.

Joe Scarborough Wrote:The tragic consequences of the past few months should remind everyone on both sides that in the end, words matter the most. I say that because the cop killer's hatred was fueled by an avalanche of hate speech that was directed at law enforcement officers in general over the past four months.
...I was blasted on social media as a racist for calling out the St. Louis Rams players. And United States Congressmen for recklessly promoting the phrase "hands up, don't shoot."
...I was worried in real time for good reason that using those inflammatory words told anybody listening to them that Michael Brown was gunned down by a white cop while his hands were raised in surrender. I was angered at the inflammatory phrase and warned that using a phrase that the grand jury itself reported was never used, slander SL cops and would make the situation worse for cops across America, and it did. Why? Because words matter.

My goodness. No protest is allowed. Ever. Because saying anything could worry Joe Scarborough that any words could lead to violence. If "hands up, don't shoot" counts as "an avalanche of hate speech" that has been "recklessly promoted" to "slander" the police with "inflamatory words" then what possible words would fail to hurt Joe's tender sensibilities?

I'm sure Mr. Scarborough is busy writing a similar rebuke of counter protesters for recklessly promoting inflammatory words, "I can breathe". Nothing there that would stir up any anger or racial tension, right?



Any minute now, I'm sure, good old "Morning Joe" will give these conservative counter protesters a stern lecture about how "words matter".

Meanwhile, a former NYPD detective Harry Houck wants the mayor to resign because something something his tone something something waaaahhhh.

Fox Noise Wrote:Carlson: What would he actually say? [if the mayor were to apologize as you think he needs to]

Houck: I want to apologize to the police officers for my tone and my actions. You know, he didn't say a lot of stuff, really anti- cop let's say, but he said it in a sort of round about way. It was his tone that he said it.

Houck: I think he should resign, but you know it's not going to happen, He's a progressive. Progressives don't take responsibility for their actions...

It's like Obama's "apology tour". Conservative's can't pinpoint what Obama said or what he did to "apologize" but dammit, he, ya know, kind of implied it, ya know, in a sort of round about way and stuff.

Former NYPD commissioner Bernie Kerik had even stronger words, saying the mayor has "blood on hands" that he and Sharpton "encouraged this".





Obama is blamed as well, accused of issuing "propaganda" that everyone should "hate the police" (no such message or propaganda exists).




As disgusting as the right wing demonization of protesters and politicization of the murder of two police officers have been, their behavior stands in stark contrast to their apparent silence on right wing violence against law enforcement.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/22/...kil/201978

Media Matters Wrote:Yet in stark contrast, as Media Matters has documented, Fox News has routinely paid very little attention to breaking news stories that feature right-wing, or anti-government, gunmen who target law enforcement officials as a way to deliver their warped political messages.
...And critically, when they have touched on those deadly [right wing] attacks, Fox talkers have stressed that it's not fair to blame politics. Note that in 2013, after racist skinhead Michael Page started killing worshipers at an Oak Creek, WI., Sikh temple, and then murdered a police officer, Fox's Andrea Tantaros stressed that the killing spree was an isolated event that didn't have any larger implications. "How do you stop a lunatic?" she asked. "This is not a political issue."
At Fox, that has been the pattern: These kind of deadly right-wing attacks are treated as isolated incidents that are mostly void of politics. Instead, the perpetrators are portrayed as lone gunmen (and women) who do not represent any cultural or political movement.
On a September night this year, 31-year-old marksman Eric Frein was allegedly laying in wait outside the Blooming Grove police barracks in northeastern Pennsylvania, preparing to assassinate state troopers. That night, state police officer Bryon Dickson was shot and killed as he walked towards his patrol car.
...Fox News covered the stories a handful of times. Again, there was no emphasis on his possible anti-government motivations and why the "survivalist" set out to assassinate law enforcement officers.
...Another police assassination attack unfolded in June. Claiming to be acting under the bloody "banner of Liberty and Truth," Jerad Miller and his wife Amanda entered a restaurant Las Vegas executed two local policemen while they at lunch.
As bullets flew, one of the shooters reportedly shouted that the "revolution" had begun. The killers then stripped the officers of their weapons and ammunition and badges, and covered them with cloth that featured the "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flag, which has recently been adopted as a symbol of the tea party movement.
Fox News primetime hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both ignored the shocking cop-killer story the night after it happened; Megyn Kelly devoted four sentences to it.

A clearer connection can certainly be drawn between violent conservative rhetoric and these murders. Conservatives actively romanticize insurrection, violence and secession when it suits their political agenda. The entire Tea Bagger movement embodies this kind of idealization of violent revolution with their unabashed fantasizing that they are the new generation of founding fathers (new generation of Confederate secessionists would be more apt a description).

And there's no shortage of calls for violence or threats of violence in their ranks:


Nor is there any shortage of examples of, how did Scarborough touchingly put it, "an avalanche of hate speech" coming from political leaders on the right.




But there's no fretting on the right about where this kind of violent rhetoric will lead nor any remorse that the violent rhetoric might have inspired more deranged right wingers to act on them. When conservatives speak of revolution, secession and violent uprising, it's patriotism. When liberals protest at all, even with calls for non violence and peaceful protest, it's recklessly inciting anarchy and violence.

File it all under IOKIYAR.

You expected something different from these racist pricks?

The cops' job is to oppress minorities. Why EVERYONE knows that!!!!

If you want to point out their hipocracy even more, look at the details to the Eric Garner case: the police were confronting him because he was selling untaxed cigarettes. Yep, it was tax evasion. You'd think that would be the issue where the Republicans would jump to his defense. I mean, are't they the ones always complaining about taxes? They certainly didn't hesitate to jump to the defense of Clive Bundy when he didn't want to pay his grazing fees to the federal government, either.

I have yet to get a conservative or a Republican to give a good answer as to why they're so supportive of Clive Bundy but Eric Garner deserved to be choked to death; in fact, I've had one admit that they're both jerks (I wasn't talking to him while Clive Bundy was in the news, though, so I can't confirm whether or not he's a hipocrite). Anyone want to explain this one to me?

Don't you complain about people using logical fallacies in like, half your posts? That whole thing amounts to mostly strawmans and red herrings.

I've just accepted that politics in this country is fucked and will most likely be our downfall. It sucks, but my blood pressure is much better.

(December 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Don't you complain about people using logical fallacies in like, half your posts? That whole thing amounts to mostly strawmans and red herrings.

Who were you asking that question to?

The last poster above you, Tara Jo is spot on.

(December 27, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Don't you complain about people using logical fallacies in like, half your posts? That whole thing amounts to mostly strawmans and red herrings.

Who were you asking that question to?

The last poster above you, Tara Jo is spot on.

I'm replying to the original post.

(December 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: That whole thing amounts to mostly strawmans and red herrings.

As I often am wont to say in my replies to Christian and Muslim apologists:

"Do tell"

(December 27, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Don't you complain about people using logical fallacies in like, half your posts? That whole thing amounts to mostly strawmans and red herrings.

Who were you asking that question to?

The last poster above you, Tara Jo is spot on.

Thank you, but it really was meant to be a serious question for the conservatives here: What's so different about the Clive Bundy case that made him threatening to shoot federal agents but Eric Garner deserved to be choked to death for selling cigarettes without taxes?

(December 27, 2014 at 7:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Who were you asking that question to?

The last poster above you, Tara Jo is spot on.

I'm replying to the original post.

Oh and the OP is spot on as well. I agree with the OP.