House Majority Whip shot at congressional baseball field

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2017, 04:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't find "recognizing jackasses on both sides" to be particularly helpful, though it is certainly better than supposing only one side has jackasses.  The most that could follow from this recognition is an exhortation to both sides to "stop it," the sort of admonition which rarely works. (Though I don't say "never".) But the claim is useless in helping anyone understand how we got to the current impasse between Democrats and Republicans.

In all my years of following politics, I have seen no evidence that one party is more partial to sex or corruption scandals than the other. Both sides certainly do it, and with a frequency which makes it hard to claim one does more than the other. Further, one can always find facebook posters or media commentators or an occasional Representative who says something odious, racist, sexist or whatever on either side.

But in my view, there is still a question of scale and of qualitative difference, and of origins. Saying that "all politicians lie" hardly captures the radical change in political rhetoric and behavior established by Trump at the national level. There are things that "both sides" don't do to nearly the same degree, practices I don't see both doing, and practices which began with one side, not the other. I don't think much will change without more specific criticism tied to examples and dates, and a re-affirmation of critical standards.

Just to provide three examples of what I am talking about:

1) in 1996, Newt Gingrich put out a memo to his fellow Republicans which contained a kind of lexicon of positive words for Republican policies and extreme and pejorative adjectives to be integrated into any discussion of "opponents." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm. And it was at this point, during the successive fruitless Clinton scandals, that the national political rhetoric changed towards its present heading, became qualitatively different from anything since WWII.

2) in 2000, Karl Rove devised "push polls" to discredit John McCain. The goal of such polls is not to gather information, but to plan negative information about a candidate--in this case, the suggestion that McCain had an illegitimate black child.

3) In 2016, as mainstream news organizations sought to fight fake news by publishing primers and re-affirming journalistic standards, Fox and friends went the other direction, embracing the term "fake news" and applying it in blanket form to the MSM, a tactic then quickly adopted by the current president. The point of this was not accurate description but uncritical, wholesale delegitimization of competing viewpoints via a permanent label. It was also their way of affirming "Both sides" do fake news, though both sides were not.

I should also add that the three examples above speak to organizational/institutional tactics, not simply the views of one individual. They had to be validated by groups of people in charge of the organization and then implemented. In each case the tactic established an organizational standard. The tactics have created some pressure on Democrats to adopt them to compete, but for the most part Dems have refused or discovered such tactics don't cross the aisle well.

Comparing anecdotes is certainly an exercises in futility which offers no basis for recognizing organizational tactics or national shifts in such tactics. But placing political behavior in an analytic framework that allows for systematic comparison, and recognition and elimination of double standards, does allow one to get a more secure grasp of the social causes of political extremism and so some chance of realistically addressing them.

Do you are saying in example one that you believe suggesting a lexicon is something unique to Republicans? And you are saying you searched the internet, and came up with nothing the left does that compares to lexicons and push polls?

[Benton]

(06-16-2017, 05:36 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-republican-healthcare-bill-595321

I link this one because this guy was a Sanders supporter.

Thanks. I hadn't seen anything like that. I wouldn't put it on the same scale as the claims of death panels, but still pretty absurd. Sanders would have been more accurate to say "many if these people will have a lifetime of debt because their insurance is being taken away."

[*michaelsean*]

Hell the NYT just mentioned the cross hairs again and said no connection was ever established as if it's a possibility they just couldn't prove it. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nyt-still-peddling-trash-about-palin-and-the-gabrielle-giffords-shooting/article/2626049

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-16-2017, 06:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Thanks. I hadn't seen anything like that. I wouldn't put it on the same scale as the claims of death panels, but still pretty absurd. Sanders would have been more accurate to say "many if these people will have a lifetime of debt because their insurance is being taken away."

That's why I said that everyone's words are way too extreme. Just tell the truth and it will be much better than over exaggerating since when people over exaggerate, most just blow it off and don't figure out what's really going on.

[Bengalzona]

(06-16-2017, 11:02 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Republicans and Democrats actually agree on something in a moment of rare clarity and your response is, "Spare me."

You are missing the bigger picture here.

If someone can't keep you preoccupied trying to defend what someone else said (which you were probably never even aware that they said it anyway), then you might have time to review other things (like how the POTUS is currently under investigation, for example).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2017, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, No fooling you with my three clearly stated examples of Republican operatives; you were "paying attention." 

The first question I ask regarding descriptions of political history, behavior, and policies is whether they are accurate.
If I think they are not, I try to say where they are, or I don't say anything.

The first question you should have asked is are my examples complete and do they attempt to be fair?  It doesn't look like either of these questions were on your list at all.
 

Quote:If they are accurate, then it doesn't really matter whether they are "partisan." 

Absolutely untrue.  Again, is that a complete or exhaustive list?  I think we'd both agree that the answer is no.  Given that, why did you choose the examples you did?  Why were all the examples you chose to use regarding action by one political party?  You can keep trying to put tinsel on a turd, it won't make it a Christmas tree.

Quote:And if accuracy is the desired goal, then to begin a non-partisan inquiry into bad political behavior with the assumption that one simply must find that behavior distributed equally on "both sides," is to begin with an unacceptable bias.

Again, incorrect.  This statement also makes me question your grasp of the concept being discussed.  You go in with no assumptions at all.  However, seeing as we have both lived on this planet, and in this country, for a fair amount of time it doesn't take any assumptions, only basic experience, to know that both sides engage, and have engaged, in political skullduggery.

Quote:I add that calling other people "partisan" doesn't establish one's non-partisan credentials, especially where the charges are unsupported. Partisans call each other that all the time.  

Except the charges are supported by the very content of your post, and previous posts you have made.  As for establishing my "non-partisan" credentials, I don't care whether you think what I'm doing does so or not.  Every individual reader will make that decision for themselves.

(06-16-2017, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: My "defense" of them is that they made an error and corrected it. You apparently agree, but need more colorful descriptive terms--"willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent."  And they did catch the error, hence the correction.

It's an error that should have never been made.  They deserve to be lambasted for it.  If I make a huge error at work and an entire criminal case is ruined I don't get a free pass because I acknowledge that I screwed up.  Especially given the, at times justified, accusations of left wing media bias any paper in those crosshairs should be doing more than even the usual due diligence to make sure such basic errors aren't committed. 

Quote:Looks like "conjecture" in both corners, if we are talking about the editors and Vlad, though only one of us recognizes this.

One is proven to have made a mistake by publicly acknowledging said mistake.  It is at that point that your analogy fails and you continue to fail by not realizing it.

Thank you.

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One is proven to have made a mistake by publicly acknowledging said mistake.  It is at that point that your analogy fails and you continue to fail by not realizing it.

Thank you.

Which is better, recognizing and correcting a mistake, or never doing that?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2017, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Which is better, recognizing and correcting a mistake, or never doing that?

But for some reason mention it again years later.

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The first question you should have asked is are my examples complete and do they attempt to be fair?  It doesn't look like either of these questions were on your list at all.
 
Absolutely untrue.  Again, is that a complete or exhaustive list?  I think we'd both agree that the answer is no.  Given that, why did you choose the examples you did?  Why were all the examples you chose to use regarding action by one political party?  You can keep trying to put tinsel on a turd, it won't make it a Christmas tree.

Again, incorrect.  This statement also makes me question your grasp of the concept being discussed.  You go in with no assumptions at all.  However, seeing as we have both lived on this planet, and in this country, for a fair amount of time it doesn't take any assumptions, only basic experience, to know that both sides engage, and have engaged, in political skullduggery.

1. My examples don't have to be "complete" to make my point.  And if "fair" means they supply enough context to make point without misrepresenting, then yes, they are fair.

2. Again, no need to make a an "exhaustive" list. (How would you ever fit something like that in a forum post?) My point is that "both sides" aren't equally responsible for the current politics of hyperbole and hate, and some "skullduggery" as you call it, definitely originates with one side, not the other.  You had to UTTERLY MISS that clearly stated point to come back with questions like "why those examples?" and "why only one party?" The examples were chosen because so far as I know, no Democratic organization or campaign did what I specified Gingrich, Rove, and the Fox crew did. I am claiming that BOTH SIDES DON'T DO IT because I have not seen the other party doing it. That is why "all the actions are by one political party."

3. One doesn't begin any inquiry with "no assumptions at all." And you are faulting me for not going into my inquiry with your assumption--namely that "skullduggery" must be equally distributed.  My clearly stated hypothesis is that it must not.  To test that hypothesis, I must find examples that either originate with one side or are only practiced by one side.  The goal here is to find out whether the hypothesis is true, not to make both sides feel good.

Also, this hypothesis is put forward in a way that makes it falsifiable. One could 1) offer examples showing Democrats used the same three tactics BEFORE Republicans did, or 2) put up three examples of equally egregious tactics created and pursued by Democrats in the post-Watergate era (i.e., close enough in time to influence current politics), or  3) demonstrate the examples did not in fact occur or did not occur as described.

Claiming that BOTH SIDES DO IT--"it" being skullduggery--does not refute my hypothesis.  I BEGAN by granting all kinds of behavior is done by both parties. That was to set up my point, that I was specifying behavior originating with one party.

Michaelsean understood on the first reading, and went right to the appropriate question.

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 08:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But for some reason mention it again years later.

If it's the same people, then you caught them. They deserve SSF's hyper-rhetoric.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2017, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Which is better, recognizing and correcting a mistake, or never doing that?

Now that you're asking a different question I can infer that you recognize that I am correct?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2017, 09:23 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. My examples don't have to be "complete" to make my point.  And if "fair" means they supply enough context to make point without misrepresenting, then yes, they are fair.

If your point is that you are highly biased and partisan then, yes, you are correct.

Quote:2. Again, no need to make a an "exhaustive" list. (How would you ever fit something like that in a forum post?) My point is that "both sides" aren't equally responsible for the current politics of hyperbole and hate, and some "skullduggery" as you call it, definitely originates with one side, not the other.  You had to UTTERLY MISS that clearly stated point to come back with questions like "why those examples?" and "why only one party?" The examples were chosen because so far as I know, no Democratic organization or campaign did what I specified Gingrich, Rove, and the Fox crew did. I am claiming that BOTH SIDES DON'T DO IT because I have not seen the other party doing it. That is why "all the actions are by one political party."

I didn't ask for exhaustive, I asked for fair and representative.  You seriously can't think of one instance of dirty politics by Democrats?  I can think of a few from the most recent Democratic primary.

Quote:3. One doesn't begin any inquiry with "no assumptions at all." And you are faulting me for not going into my inquiry with your assumption--namely that "skullduggery" must be equally distributed.  My clearly stated hypothesis is that it must not.  To test that hypothesis, I must find examples that either originate with one side or are only practiced by one side.  The goal here is to find out whether the hypothesis is true, not to make both sides feel good.

No, I fault you for going into your inquiry with the mindset you just expressed above, that there is no such parallel activity by the Democrats.  You're making my point for me with your own words.  I'll send you some chocolates if you PM me your address.

Quote:Also, this hypothesis is put forward in a way that makes it falsifiable. One could 1) offer examples showing Democrats used the same three tactics BEFORE Republicans did, or 2) put up three examples of equally egregious tactics created and pursued by Democrats in the post-Watergate era (i.e., close enough in time to influence current politics), or  3) demonstrate the examples did not in fact occur or did not occur as described.

Wait, is your concern only with the specific tactic or with dirty politics in general?  I mean, I've seen some amazing examples of selective outrage, but this would be a new one on me.

Quote:Claiming that BOTH SIDES DO IT--"it" being skullduggery--does not refute my hypothesis.  I BEGAN by granting all kinds of behavior is done by both parties. That was to set up my point, that I was specifying behavior originating with one party.

Why the hyper focus on one party though?  In your own words, just quoted, you admit to granting dirty behavior by both parties.  So why, in a thread about the rancorous nature of today's politics, and how it led to this tragic event, would you indulge in more one sided rancor?

Quote:Michaelsean understood on the first reading, and went right to the appropriate question.

He's nicer to you than I am.  I deal with this kind of pretzel logic every work day so I have far less patience for it.

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 06:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you are saying in example one that you believe suggesting a lexicon is something unique to Republicans?  And you are saying you searched the internet, and came up with nothing the left does that compares to lexicons and push polls?

1. Gingrich's lists are not simply a "lexicon." They are designed to infuse political discussion with an accusatory tone. And they are put forward because Gingrich and others thought that tone was lacking. They wanted to up the level of anger.  Also, it's not just his list. He was helped by someone else, and the point was to provide a model to be adopted party wide. The list was not the usual drawing up of specific talking points to keep people on message, which both parties do. It was a deliberate adoption of attack-style political debate, meant to be a permanent innovation.

 2. So far as I know, there is no such tactic deployed by Democrats since Watergate. It could be someone tried to copy it. But I am unaware of any such attempt to come up with a list of pejorative adjectives and phrases and then deploy it party wide. It could be back in the 30s some Communist group did it, or maybe some anti-war protestors in the 60s.  If someone finds a similar list or tactic on the part of the Democrats, that is not just the usual dissemination of talking points to keep people on message but intended to increase overall hostility, then I will withdraw that example. I add that occasionally, individual politicians and media commentators have reasoned they too should adopt a similar combative mode. I am not aware that it has worked anywhere for Democrats.
 
3. Regarding push polls, no I am not aware of Democrats using them before Rove. I am not aware of them using push polls after Rove either, at least not under the control of the DNC. There could be PAC and other organizations doing so, but if so they have not been the precedent-setting, character-assasination type pioneered by Rove. A blogger named Nolan Dalla claims a push poll was used on him by Democrats in Nevada in 2016. Not the character assassination type though. Someone on Quora also claims Dems do, but offers no examples. As I look back over the last 5 decades of following politics, no, I don't see anything like Rove's push polls on the Dem's side.

4. My examples are not exhaustive, by the way. I can think of some more. E.g. Lee Atwater's Willie Horton ad which helped GW Bush win. That broke a civil boundary as well, back in the 80s.  A step towards Gingrich and the 90s.

An additional note--I do not consider the Democratic party a left party. It includes leftists, like Bernie, because of the two party system. But the last two presidential nominees, Hillary and Obama, are not "leftists."  The party is largely centrist with some center left voters. So I am comparing centrists and rightists, with a view to whether and how their ideas set the tone for political behavior within the party. I do not see much leftist influence on the Democrats, except through Elizabeth Warren and Bernie. They are not good examples of uncivil behavior. They work to discourage rather than encourage it.

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't ask for exhaustive, I asked for fair and representative.  You seriously can't think of one instance of dirty politics by Democrats?  I can think of a few from the most recent Democratic primary.

No, I fault you for going into your inquiry with the mindset you just expressed above, that there is no such parallel activity by the Democrats.  You're making my point for me with your own words.  I'll send you some chocolates if you PM me your address.

Wait, is your concern only with the specific tactic or with dirty politics in general?  I mean, I've seen some amazing examples of selective outrage, but this would be a new one on me.

What YOU ask for is beside the point, especially if you cannot seem to follow the argument. Mike's question went to the center of my argument, which you have still missed.

Unlike you, I do have patience. To repeat-- placing political behavior in an analytic framework that allows for systematic comparison, and recognition and elimination of double standards, does allow one to get a more secure grasp of the social causes of political extremism and so some chance of realistically addressing them.

I am not looking for garden variety dirty politics and then claiming only one party does them. I am not interested in a blame game.

I am examining the social/historical roots of the current extremism. What dirty tricks fueled that? Stuffing a ballot box or taking bribes or even breaking into the other side's headquarters are not the sort of thing that would count here, since they break the law but don't reset the level of civility in public debate.  Atwater's Willie Horton add would, as would Trump's tweet of pictures comparing his wife to Ted Cruz's.

You claim there is "parallel activity" by the Democrats. Did Hillary call some group "deplorables"?

(06-16-2017, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why the hyper focus on one party though?  In your own words, just quoted, you admit to granting dirty behavior by both parties.  So why, in a thread about the rancorous nature of today's politics, and how it led to this tragic event, would you indulge in more one sided rancor?

To repeat my repeat, I am not trying to establish that both parties engage in "dirty behavior"--then reversing that to claim only one does. I am saying there are specific kinds of dirty behavior which have broken previously established political decorum and elevated anger and divisiveness to a level not seen since the 60s.  And I am saying that one party appears more guilty of THAT behavior than the other.  It's not my fault if Democrats have not done what Atwater, Gingrich, Rove and a gaggle of Fox News commentators along with Trump have done.  It is not my fault if the Republican Party and its president have mainstreamed rhetoric, goals and tactics once associated primarily with right-wing fringe groups. 

You keep talking about rancor and one-sidedness--
Is there a reason why, even in your second response now, you have only offered me chocolates rather than counter examples?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-17-2017, 12:43 AM)Dill Wrote: What YOU ask for is beside the point, especially if you cannot seem to follow the argument. Mike's question went to the center of my argument, which you have still missed.

Didn't miss, didn't care. 

Quote:Unlike you, I do have patience. To repeat-- placing political behavior in an analytic framework that allows for systematic comparison, and recognition and elimination of double standards, does allow one to get a more secure grasp of the social causes of political extremism and so some chance of realistically addressing them.

But only GOP extremism amirite?

Quote:I am not looking for garden variety dirty politics and then claiming only one party does them. I am not interested in a blame game.

You say as you blame only one party.

Quote:I am examining the social/historical roots of the current extremism. What dirty tricks fueled that? Stuffing a ballot box or taking bribes or even breaking into the other side's headquarters are not the sort of thing that would count here, since they break the law but don't reset the level of civility in public debate.  Atwater's Willie Horton add would, as would Trump's tweet of pictures comparing his wife to Ted Cruz's.

So, to be clear, using physical violence, a la anti-Trump protests during the GE campaign, violent attacks by left wing activists like ANTIFA and the shooting that prompted this thread not as bad as Willie Horton add or calling a man's wife ugly.  Outstanding argument! :andy:

Quote:You claim there is "parallel activity" by the Democrats. Did Hillary call some group "deplorables"?

Uh, yes.  She didn't say they cling to their religion or guns though.  That level of condescension was reserved for someone else.

Quote:To repeat my repeat, I am not trying to establish that both parties engage in "dirty behavior." I am saying there are specific kinds of dirty behavior which have broken previously established political decorum and elevated anger and divisiveness to a level not seen since the 60s.  It's not my fault if Democrats have not done what Atwater, Gingrich, Rove and a gaggle of Fox News commentators along with Trump have done.  It is not my fault if the Republican Party and its president have mainstreamed rhetoric, goals and tactics once associated primarily with right-wing fringe groups. 

Let's say I give you this, poorly argued, point.  The left has taken the physical violence route and thus far surpassed political rudeness.  Quick learners eh?

Quote:You keep talking about rancor and one-sidedness--
Is there a reason why, even in your second response now, you have only offered me chocolates rather than counter examples?

You must not be paying attention.  I will still send you the chocolates though.  This is only the second time I've offered though, not the third.  Do please try and keep up.

[*michaelsean*]

So like the things Ted Kennedy said about Rober Bork? Or what was done to Clarence Thomas? Or Dan Quayle because he misspelled potato? Or the Senate majority leader telling a classroom of kids that the president is an idiot? How about the constant charges of racism over the last 8 years?

Of course all of this skips the initial statement that started this. When an event like the VA one happens one group will blame the extremism of the other group.

[Dill]

(06-17-2017, 12:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Didn't miss, didn't care. 
But only GOP extremism amirite?
You say as you blame only one party.
So, to be clear, using physical violence, a la anti-Trump protests during the GE campaign, violent attacks by left wing activists like ANTIFA and the shooting that prompted this thread not as bad as Willie Horton add or calling a man's wife ugly.  Outstanding argument! :andy:
Uh, yes.  She didn't say they cling to their religion or guns though.  That level of condescension was reserved for someone else.

Let's say I give you this, poorly argued, point.  The left has taken the physical violence route and thus far surpassed political rudeness.  Quick learners eh?
You must not be paying attention.  I will still send you the chocolates though.  This is only the second time I've offered though, not the third.  Do please try and keep up.

I am not setting up a comparison of extremist incidents to see who's "badder." I am looking at causes of political extremism which have been consciously developed and applied by the major political parties.

Violent attacks by ANTIFA did not create the current climate of extremism. Neither did the recent shooting. They are not an innovation by one of the two major parties then taken up as a norm of campaigning and or political debate. Neither is a political strategy developed by the RNC or DNC. If you followed my response to Michaelsean, you should understand why I am not throwing up incidents of right wing terrorism as causes. Dylan Roof's killing of nine black people might be a result of right wing ideology, but it is not an example of a tactic used by a party.  https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states

Nothing in your response suggests you grasp how my argument fits together--what the stated goal is and how conclusions flow from premises. You respond to these separately, in disconnected fashion, framing each with you own "both sides do it" thesis. The resulting smatter of quips, nervous jokes, and counterpoints-that-miss-the-point create an impression of flailing, especially when others grasped my thrice-restated goal on first reading and you still cannot show that you have.

Do you have counter examples of Dem tactical innovations which consciously broke political civility/decorum barriers over the last three decades or not?

Do you need a fourth strike before you are finally out?

[Dill]

(06-17-2017, 09:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So like the things Ted Kennedy said about Rober Bork?  Or what was done to Clarence Thomas?  Or Dan Quayle because he misspelled potato?  Or the Senate majority leader telling a classroom of kids that the president is an idiot?  How about the constant charges of racism over the last 8 years?
Of course all of this skips the initial statement that started this. When an event like the VA one happens one group will blame the extremism of the other group.

Some people will blame extremism on the other group. And some people will be motivated to examine the social and historical origins of that extremism.

I don't remember what Kennedy said about Bork or which senate majority leader said what to a classroom of kids. Could you fill in a bit more and explain why or how these set a precedent and/or broke previous norms.

Are you offering media laughter at Quayle as an example of a political tactic which broke previously established boundaries of decorum?

What was "done" to Thomas? A woman came forward and said he sexually harassed her. Something to consider if he will be hearing sexual harassment cases. If you believe her, as I do, then she did the right thing. Then he was confirmed. That was the wrong thing. Would you argue that calling someone like that to testify in a confirmation hearing was a precedent or broke levels of decorum? 

Your example got me to thinking of the Bork hearing a few years earlier, which conservatives have claimed was a "political" dis-confirmation. Would that be a better example?

You seem to assume that charges of racism cannot be true and calling out racism is automatically a bad thing. But in your response, I cannot tell who is making such charges, to whom, or why. A memo from someone in the DNC or from Nancy Pelosi suggesting that Democrats always frame Republican policies as anti-race, whether they actually are or not, followed by a number of Democrats doing exactly that, would certainly be an effective counter example to my Republican examples.

Further clarification, by way of example. Nixon ordering the Watergate break in was a dirty trick. But that trick was not on the Republican Party. Nixon did not clear it with party officials. Party officials did not condone it nor accept any benefit from it. That was just Nixon, and his party repudiated him for doing it. Republicans did not adopt break ins as a tactic, and Democrats did not copy them to keep up. Hence my examples do not put forward behavior like Nixon's as political innovation which lowered the level of political discourse, even though it certainly broke boundaries.

[samhain]

(06-16-2017, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd like to think so too, but it's hard to see him changing now any more than seeing 70 year old Trump suddenly not tweeting names and acting like a petulant child.

Many people called for a more reasonable dialogue before Nugent did...and as per usual folks like Ted suddenly have a change of heart when words lead to actions.

For example:

.@Judgenap: Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 23, 2016

NOW they say that was a quote of someone else and a staffer shared it.

But hey...

I kind of remember that quote.  Wonder how he feels about it now.

[GMDino]

Hold up folks!  Teddy now say he never meant violence toward anyone.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/06/i-never-hinted-violence-nugent-says-he

Quote:Conservative rocker Ted Nugent on Sunday blamed Democrats for inciting vicious partisan rhetoric and insisted that he had "never threatened anyone."



Following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and other Republicans at a congressional baseball practice last week, Nugent announced that it was time to stop using incendiary rhetoric to demonize political opponents.

On Sunday, Fox & Friends noted that liberals are calling Nugent a hypocrite because he once told then-President Barack Obama to "suck on my machine gun."

"Let me make it perfectly clear, I have never projected hate," Nugent insisted. "When I said that about sucking on my machine gun, that was a direct response to the liberal Democrats -- Obama and Clinton, et al -- [trying] to ban certain types of firearms, violating their oath to the Constitution and the Second Amendment."

"That was a metaphor and nobody is too stupid not to know that," he continued. "The left is so dishonest that they misrepresented that, and make it perfectly clear with my Fox & Friends, I have never threatened anybody. I have never hinted at violence."

According to Nugent, the "Detroit street slang" he used came during "adrenaline-charged rock and roll performances"

"I am reaching out across the aisle, and I am saying we must unite to bring no violence, no harm to any of our fellow Americans," he opined. "I have alway been civil. Again, during the outrage of a rock and roll performance, machine gun references have been made but nobody could possibly think I want anybody's lips near my machine gun."

Nugent complained that there had been no signs of civility from "the left."

"They're still going to burn down buildings if they disagree with your speech, and turn over cars and attack people if they don't agree with you," he remarked.

"I think that's all something we needed to hear right now," Fox News host Abby Huntsman concluded.

See?  Just a metaphor.

Now a picture with a bloody mannequin head?  No one would be stupid enough to think that was a metaphor.