Also, I see repeatedly a general problem in political discourse among those who are not well educated in this area to assign ideologies freely and dishonestly to the opposition. I will give two examples in the following paragraph. Fascism is a nationalist ideology that derives itself from a post-wwI intellectual movement that felt that nations will always be in perpetual conflict due to cultural differences (among others), and the only solution was to create a strong militaristic nation with a strong national identity. Intellectuals of the fascist movement felt that the 19th century was the year of the individual and the 20th century was the year of the collectivist, thus their nationalism led to a coalition with the national socialists and opposition to international socialism as well as ideologies derived from classical liberalism, including social liberalism [contemporary conservatism did not exist at this time to any appreciable degree]. Given the general fall of more radical forms of socialism, it would be a reasonable conclusion, and is seen today to be the case, that neo-fascists have all but given up on national socialism in favor of free markets. That certainly does not sound like social liberalism nor contemporary conservatism (though those rare paleoconservatives out there may be a bit more at home). The other ideology typically thrown around is socialism in order to invoke the red scare. There are two kinds of socialism: that from Marxism and then democratic socialism. Marxist socialism was the ideology that Karl Marx derived from his critique of capitalism whose end result was communism as a stable state. Socialism was to be a revolutionary period in which a strong leader led the proletariat in redistributing property for the public good and placing the workers in control of the means of production. In the end, the government would be dissolved and people would essentially work together collectively for the public good, replacing capitalism altogether to perhaps a more resource based economy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, is meant as a stable state that eliminates the problem that came from dictators (probably the single greatest problem in Marxism) and does not seek to reach communism (there are other differences one may look up). Marxism has been widely marginalized in the world and always has been in the United States to this day where there remains no appreciable Marxist movement. Marxism is far left or hard left or whatever you wish to call it along with collectivist anarchism, but democratic socialism and social democracy are considered center-left ideologies.

The ideology the Democratic Party falls near is social liberalism (though the more protectionist ones may be a bit nearer to social democracy), which was derived as an individualist philosophy from classical liberalism seeking to optimize individual liberty in an age of exploitation from powerful private interests. Social liberalism is considered, in most places in the world, to be a centrist ideology while being a very mild center-left in the UK and US. Contemporary conservatism is boldly center-right in the United States. However, there is not an absence of far-right rhetoric in the United States today that does, at the very least, insinuate non-democratic action. Non-democratic solutions to problems is a good indication of a move to far-right/left ideology and today the rhetoric in the most watched media source in the United States is legitimizing far-right movements that take violent action for political means. Yes, indeed, there have and may be in the future violent far-left movements (and believe me, I will fight those as well). However, using historic examples are not extremely relevant to the climate today (as one did in a previous comment). The point is, overall, not to lose intellectual integrity by resorting to calling centrist to mildly center-left movements far-left or socialist (or fascist for that matter, as the fascists were indeed right-wing on the one-dimensional political spectrum).

To be clear, classical liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, what the founding fathers followed. However, it was meant for small commercial and farming communities and did not predict industrialization and the information age (would Thomas Jefferson find an independent media today that he admired back then?). The founding fathers, while certainly had very good ideas for the time, are not the sole intellectuals in history and should indeed be treated as critically as anyone.

I noticed one person referring to abortion as murder as being an objective conclusion. I would like to see this derivation, as there it seems there is no true objective standard, but only subjective beliefs as to where life starts.

And by three liberal tv commentators, I assume you mean – 80% of all tv commentators. But speaking of one of those three you're talking about, is Keith Olbermann ever NOT inciting hatred against conservatives ? That's his whole schtick. Last night, he called Newt Gingrich the second worst person in the world just because Newt paraphrased a line from the Declaration of Independence.

I count that as ONE act of right-wing violence, and TWO acts of left-wing violence, if we are counting in a political manner (which I'd actually prefer not to do, but since the Reverend is wallowing in it, so be it).

Soooo, where's the big concern over right-wing violence again ? The ONE murder ? Um, shouldn't we be TWICE as concerned about the left-wing violence ?

And if you want the actual truth about whether more violence comes from the left or the right, please see my post (which is an answer to the Rev's posts on this subject) "Leftists Are The Biggest Mass Murderers In History" over at the All Da King's Men blog. The truth will set you free.

And Rev, regarding your question, do you consider the Dems anti-war rhetoric to be responsible for the shootings of the two army recruiters ? Certainly, you don't need me to provide examples of that for you. The examples are numerous.

Just give me a little time.

The facts are in front of us. We can choose to deal with them or fall back on some, "both sides do it", moral equivalency run around.

Less than four months into a new Democratic presidential administration, and extremist conservative media personalities have been foaming at the mouth, almost uncontrollably, the entire time. It's 1993 all over again…..Clinton was stalked like an animal from the day of his inauguration and right wing violence was prevalent…..because conservative extremists, and some not so extreme, believed Clinton was an illegitimate president. It led to the despicable impeachment of a popular president who had done absolutely nothing to justify impeachment.

Now, it' 1993 all over again for conservatives. Another Democratic president who is not accepted as legitimate. And more violence from the extreme right.

Those are the facts in front of us.

And to those who suggest that both sides in today's media foment violence with their hate-speech……I challenge you to support your assertions. There are only 3 "news" type programs on all of teevee which might be considered coming from a left perspective. Only 3. The Ed Show, Olbermann and Maddow. Although all 3 anchors mock the daylights out of today's GOP and movement conservatives…..I challenge you to find language insinuating violence that's similar to Bill O'Reilly's "Tiller the baby killer" or Coulter's "bomb the NY Times", to name only two of many.