Last Wednesday, a kook in western Maryland made the media's day by getting carried away and bringing a "Death to Obama" sign to a town hall meeting. He was promptly arrested by the Secret Service. William Kostric wore a gun to a protest outside of where Comrade Obama was staging one of his phony dog and pony shows, and carried a sign reading "It's Time to Water the Tree of Liberty." Chris "Tingles" Matthews decided to interpret this as a death threat, nearly causing his own head to explode.
But there was a time when threatening the president's life was all the rage, as exhaustively documented by Zombie. A few examples:
Apparently no one was ever arrested or even questioned for threatening W's life at moonbat protests, in stark contrast to the hysterical reactions to the vaguest hint of a threat today. Zombie explains the discrepancy:
I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events.
To get an idea of how widespread threats against W were, here is Dem presidential candidate John "François" Kerry joking about bashing his head in with a rock:
Bill Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.John Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
As readers will recall, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams has also publicly fantasized about killing Bush 43.
Once again, the lesson is: anything goes, so long as you're a liberal. In contrast, conservatives are held to the highest standards. This is both a cause and an effect of the fact that liberals have no standards, whereas conservatives aspire to the highest ones.
On a tip from V the K.
But there was a time when threatening the president's life was all the rage, as exhaustively documented by Zombie. A few examples:
Apparently no one was ever arrested or even questioned for threatening W's life at moonbat protests, in stark contrast to the hysterical reactions to the vaguest hint of a threat today. Zombie explains the discrepancy:
I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events.
To get an idea of how widespread threats against W were, here is Dem presidential candidate John "François" Kerry joking about bashing his head in with a rock:
Bill Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.John Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
As readers will recall, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams has also publicly fantasized about killing Bush 43.
Once again, the lesson is: anything goes, so long as you're a liberal. In contrast, conservatives are held to the highest standards. This is both a cause and an effect of the fact that liberals have no standards, whereas conservatives aspire to the highest ones.
On a tip from V the K.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment