Skip to content

How They Conveniently Forget

March 29, 2010

Isn’t it funny how conveniently the Liberals and their media pals forget how it’s the Liberals themselves who ACTUALLY act violently? Yet media is trying to convince the World that “Conservatives” are the violent ones. Oh so hypocritical.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This one’s from NewsBusters

Media Forget Leftwing Violence at 2008 GOP Convention
Article: Newsbusters

As so-called journalists across the fruited plain hyperventilate about alleged death threats and future acts of violence they claim are being stoked by “hate speech” from the Right, they are conveniently ignoring how the Left behaved in this country when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Case in point: the violent protests that occurred at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

John Hinderaker’s marvelous piece on this subject published at Power Line Saturday should be must-reading for conveniently amnesiac media members who suddenly think civil disobedience is racist:

I attended the convention and remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters very well. They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.

These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats’ own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures? I don’t think so. We haven’t seen that sort of hate campaign since the Democrats went after Abraham Lincoln. It seems unlikely that none of the “protesters” who tried to commit murder were inspired by those liberal voices.

Yet, hardly anyone seems to be aware of the violence that took place in 2008. At most, the story was treated with a ho-hum attitude in the press. For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago. Yet today, we can hardly imagine what would happen if a group of tea partiers were to drop sandbags off a highway overpass, trying to kill motorists below. Liberal reporters’ heads would explode. But this is exactly what anti-Republican Party protesters did in 2008, and no one cared. To my knowledge, not a single Democratic politician condemned this anti-Republican violence or attempted in any way to distance the Democratic Party from it.

For the record, I was also there, and remember full-well walking by protesters shouting truly disgusting epithets at delegates and attendees.

But this was okay then. Bush was in the White House, and the targets of all this hatred were conservatives.

Now, only 18 months later, the press view far more peaceful demonstrations as racist and inciting violence.

How can their position have changed so quickly?

16 Comments leave one →
  1. March 29, 2010 3:00 pm

    Interesting point. Now, if you throw Timothy McVeigh, the person who sent Anthrax to Democratic Senators, or Planned Parenthood bombers into the mix I think we see that acts of terrorism on US soil tend to be coming from the right. The types of acts that are killing fellow Americans.

    • March 30, 2010 2:28 pm

      I think we see that acts of terrorism on US soil tend to be coming from the right. The types of acts that are killing fellow Americans.

      Didn’t you leave out Major Nidel Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer? Was he a “right winger” too?


      • March 30, 2010 11:40 pm

        What you’ve got here is called a false dichotomy. Of course we should condemn Major Hasan, but what he did at Fort Hood was not terrorism. The men he killed last November were not civilians, but soldiers. This doesn’t make it any better, but it does make it something other than terrorism. The reason Hasan attacked them, according to most news sources, was to kill those he viewed as “enemy soldiers”. As misguided as this was, with terrorism, intent matters. Hasan viewed himself as a soldier fighting enemy soldiers. His goal was not to invoke fear in people.

        On the other side, the bombing of the Murrah building and the 41 bombings, and 173 arsons against abortion clinics were committed to create an atmosphere of fear, in a general sense (the OKC bombing), or specifically to those working at abortion clinics. Terror was the goal, thus it was terrorism.

        Now, both sides have extremes. On one end, you get people rioting and dropping sandbags on bus fulls of republican state senators and on the other, people cutting the gas lines of house representatives because of their votes on the health care (or rather the house of his brother, endangering four children under 8, but I digress). The point is, we have a democratic process for a reason. If people are unhappy with the way the government is run, then campaign to have someone you support voted in. Simple as that. Violence is never the answer. But on the other hand, just because you’re unhappy with the legislation that this congress passed, that in no way makes these congresspeople unamerican, or “ignoring the will of the people”. We’ve elected this congress, and they reflect the desires of the people on Nov. 4, 2008. The next time the country will be seeing how the american people feel is on Nov. 2, 2010. This is how democracy, the system established by the founding fathers, works. It may be imperfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.

    • March 30, 2010 5:37 pm

      Let’s also not forget the Muslim snipers in the DC area murdering innocent civillians, or the Muslim’s planning attacks on US Army bases, or the attacks on US Armed Forces recruiting offices.
      Bob A.

  2. March 30, 2010 11:34 pm

    Hi MR,
    Your welcome and we can add the Muslim perptrator of a bomb scare on A cruise ship in the last couple of days. Not A tea party member for sure.
    Bob A.

    • March 31, 2010 12:00 am

      Ah yes, I see you subscribe to the classic wisdom of Ann Coulter:
      “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
      And not all syndicated republicans are bigots, but Ms. Coulter certainly is.

      • March 31, 2010 12:21 am

        There you go again, decepticon… pretending that Conservative talking heads/pundits/authors, etc… speak for all Conservatives — or anyone that opposes the Obama/leftist/socialist agenda – or anyone that happens to support any non-leftist politics and policies.

        Not true, my friend.

        I see you subscribe to the lack of wisdom of Olbermann and Matthews who cannot put politics aside and focus on the facts that are in front of them.

        Tsk tsk.

  3. March 30, 2010 11:57 pm

    Hey decepticon,
    He viewed himself as a deceptive cowardly Islamist terrorist dressed in Muslim garbage and murdering those he knew were unarmed. Killing for the sake of a pagan moon god dreamed up by a psychotic, evil, terrorist called Mohamhead.
    Bob A.

    • March 31, 2010 12:03 am

      I wasn’t going to go as far as calling you a bigot, but after this absurd anti-muslim screed, I’m not sure that I have to. I think you’ve made it pretty apparent through your own actions.

      • March 31, 2010 12:23 am

        Raise your hand if you’ve read the Qur’an.

        *raises hand*

      • March 31, 2010 12:47 am

        Muslims have given me a reason to be anti Islamist. That being said I am not deceptive about it and not dressing up in garbage bags to blow up subways in Moscow or murder innocents, yes Muslim men have dressed in women’s garb to commit acts of atrocity. I am not hiding and then turning on those around me. You can call me whatever you like.
        Bob A.

  4. March 31, 2010 10:11 am

    I can not see how you two consider yourselves americans, patriots even, when you display such despicable religious intolerance. Freedom of religion, above almost all things, is the principle The US was founded on. It is why the pilgrims came to this continent in the first place, and it is the very first thing mentioned in the first amendment, before freedom of the press or even free speech.

    It is a sad fact that many Americans are intolerant. But their intolerance is just as protected by the first amendment as the freedoms afforded those they discriminate against. I think your hate speech is disgusting, but I will defend your right to say it.

    • March 31, 2010 12:46 pm

      I’m very tolerant of religion. Islam is nothing more than an evil cult of intimidation, terrorism, death and destruction. If Muslims don’t like being painted with that brush then they should stand up and stop the painters (other Muslims). If they don’t stand up and stop them then by default they condone their actions.

      Bob A.

    • March 31, 2010 1:35 pm

      Maybe your opinion and defense of radical Islam will change a few years down the road, after you or a few of your family members have experienced Sharia Law. That could be the eye opener you need.

      Maybe you need to see first hand what “despicable religious intolerance” is before you cast stones.


  5. March 31, 2010 10:31 pm


    When islam respects Jews and Christian and stops killing in the name of their cult…then and only then are they worthy of being tolerated. We shall see just how “tolerant” of islam you are when you are rounded up for being a kafir.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: