|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why Does the Far Right Hold a Near-Monopoly on Political Violence?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the wake of the mass shooting in suburban Virginia last week that left House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and three others wounded, conservatives have been furiously waving the bloody shirt. With left-wing hate filling half the screen, Sean Hannity blamed Democrats, saying they �dehumanize Republicans and paint them as monsters.� Tucker Carlson claimed that �some on the hard left� support political violence because it �could lead to the dissolution of a country they despise.� Others have blamed seemingly anything even vaguely identified with liberalism for inciting the violence�from Madonna to MSNBC to Shakespeare in the Park. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/23/2017)
|
| Bulltwaddle. In recent months it's been primarily lefties who promote violence, engage in violence, and condone it. Certainly there has been right wing violence, but to claim the right wing has a "near monopoly" on it is beyond absurd. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/24/2017)
|
| If by far right, they mean liberals , yes they do!!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by one enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. � JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (1821) |
|
|
