No ‘national dialogue’ needed after FRC shooting; WaPo calls it ‘scuffle’
http://twitter.com/#!/AceofSpadesHQ/status/235895102529216512
According to the lapdog media, it seems. Evidently, there is no need for a “national dialogue” on civility and tolerance, if it’s just icky old Conservatives being harmed.
RT @davidfrum MT @guypbenson: If FRC shooting occurred at HRC, we'd have wall-to-wall cov. & nat'l dialogue on tolerance./ true, I think
— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 16, 2012
Even before a shooting suspect is identified, the press usually rush not only to judge, but to “Blame Righty.” Politicians do it as well: Mayor Bloomberg, upon the announcement that there was a car-bomb found in Times Square, rushed to say that it was probably “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. ” Because, that’s what most car-bombers are, natch.
They generally shriek about “new tone” and “civility,” while trying to paint the Right as dangerous extremists, consisting of “hate groups.” The tolerance tyrants preach anti-“hate,” while being full of hate themselves. The shooting that occurred at the Family Research Council yesterday is further exposing this. And the media should be ashamed.
After first trying to sweep the news under their lapdog rugs, they then moved onto trying to spin it all away.
WAPO said the shooter "expressed disagreement in a scuffle". Are you fucking kidding me? He walked in a shot people.
— Ben (@BenK84) August 16, 2012
From The Washington Post news item:
Family Research Council security guard shot
A security guard a was shot and wounded after a scuffle with a man who expressed disagreement with the group’s conservative views.
Huh. Kind of like how Politico called SWAT-ting, a potentially deadly form of political terrorism, “an elaborate practical joke.” It’s totally hilarious when conservatives are put in harm’s way. What’s a little scuffle? It was simply a disagreement and stuff!
The intrepid Ace of Spades, and other outraged citizens on Twitter, lay it all out for anyone who still believes that the media is unbiased.
" the shooter expressed views that differed from those of the Family Research Council. " — Washington Post.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
I had to truncate that quote; they said this "disagreement" occurred "during the scuffle." The shooting scuffle.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
@keder There was no shooting. It was a disagreement, followed by a scuffle, during which social justice was obtained with firearms.
— One Who Remembers (@lheal) August 16, 2012
Really, though. A "scuffle" to "express disagreement," @washingtonpost? A guy was shot. Your reporting is repugnant.
— Slublog (@Slublog) August 16, 2012
@KevinInABQ one person expected it– the shooter. I mean, Mr. Scuffle-Pants.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
Maybe the Washingon Post should just go with the OWS styleguide and call the shooter "mostly peaceful."
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
New media style guide: Stage-charges are "spirited;" crazed gunmen/would-be political assassins engage in "scuffles"
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
"During the scuffle." A "scuffle" puncuated by gunshots and gunshot wounds.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
You know, when you have a scuffle with someone, using bullets to scuff.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
.@wap When a rightwinger expresses disagreement, it's akin to a shooting; when a leftwinger shoots someone, it's expressing disagreement
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
aurora shooting ==right wing terrorism but frc shooting == non-political scuffle… gotcha. hypocrisy much?
— st. mork (@MorkCrunch) August 16, 2012
@washingtonpost calls FRC shooting a "scuffle." Next they'll call WW2 a "regional dispute."
— Eric Praline (@Eric_Praline) August 16, 2012
And where are the “lessons to be learned”?
We all had to learn the lesson of Jared Lee Loughner, a man alleged to be a Tea Partier, but who was left-leaning (but mostly crazy)…
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
…but apparently there are just no lessons to be learned if conservatives are murdered. Game on, it seems.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
remember that every misdeed by a conservative is the shared responsibility of the movement, but every liberal misdeed is One Man's Failing
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
Giffords is shot by a man NOT influenced by right's rhetoric: We need a national discussion of how the right must moderate its rhetoric.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
FRC is Shot Up by a Man Who IS Animated by Left's Current Sexual Politics Jihad: Game on. Die, rightwingers.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
HuffPost Hill afternoon email doesn't even mention #FRC shooting. Move along, nothing to see here.
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) August 15, 2012
Media will never give fair coverage to#FRC shooting. With an outpouring of love and support for FRC, we can make them pay attention though.
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) August 16, 2012
Yes. “Hateful,” “intolerant” Christians are sending love and prayers … even to the suspected shooter. You won’t hear that in the media, though.
Members of the media are trying to sweep aside the political ideology of the suspected shooter as well. Oh, he just disagreed with that hate group-y FRC. While carrying in Chick-fil-A sandwiches. Oh, yeah, and he also volunteered at an LGBT organization. Perhaps that is where he learned that FRC employees work at a “hate group” and are, therefore, not really people and don’t count?
What was in Floyd Corkins backpack when he went into the Family Research Council? 50 rounds of 9mm ammo & 15 #Chick-fil-A sandwiches . #frc
— Andrea Noble (@anobleDC) August 16, 2012
RT @KatMcKinley: Why would the FRC shooter have 15 Chick fil A sandwiches? | Stimulus.
— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) August 16, 2012
Gee, wasn’t Chick-fil-A just in the Left’s (and media’s) crosshairs as well? With vandalism and bomb threats. The Left still, even after the shooting, continues to try to excuse their dangerous and irresponsible use of “hate group.”
.@sallykohn What violence did FRC perpetrate? Apart from the crime of being shot by a crazed LBGT advocate?
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
@sallykohn when you paint a target on someone you can't be surprised when some people take shots.
— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) August 16, 2012
But where is the media?
Saying "I don't like ur politics" before shooting barrage is HATE. Fact that FRC was labeled "Hate Group" by lefties is ignored by media.
— EevilKat (@snipahnrs) August 16, 2012
You are 100% disingenuous if you claim the media wouldn't be raising Cain if the opposite scenario of the FRC shooting happened.
— Brady Cremeens (@BradyCremeens) August 16, 2012
BTW, I have no problem with media ignoring the FRC shooter's politics. My problem is with the blatant media double standards and bias.
— Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) August 15, 2012
Outrageous double standards.
Today during his press conference on the FRC shooting yesterday, Tony Perkins said that the shooter was responsible, but that rhetoric used by outlets like Southern Poverty Law Center gave him license. He said he offered to debate the use of labels like “hate group” with SPLC, and they declined. Why won’t they discuss it?
And why won’t the media?
If anyone needs a Teachable Moment ™, they do.
Update: True to form.
SO frustrated w/ media bias preventing coverage of FRC Shooting. Utterly irresponsible journalism. http://t.co/Fxy6ilOd
— Rebeca DeBoard Seitz (@rebecaseitzGR) August 16, 2012
Embargoing continues. Nothing to see here, move along. It’s just hate incited by tolerance tyrants against icky conservatives.
Incredible. RT @AoSHQ: Shocker: Media Embargoes FRC Shooting http://t.co/VFZnw0Gy
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) August 16, 2012
More from Ace of Spades:
Chris Matthews, of course, did not cover the story at all. I assume he is on the “pro” side of murdering Republicans, because he used to rage quite insanely if someone so much as criticized Obama. That, he contended, could lead to political violence.
Well here is actual political violence, and he’s apparently okay with it. Not even worth a mention.
Comments are closed.