[Cyber Liberty]

If a terrorist attack is perpetrated by a right-winger we must ask ourselves if the public airways can continue to be used by zealots to drum up hate against the government and ask right wing politicians and commentators to ‘tone down’ the rhetoric.

Third time I read that, and I'm still scratching my head. The "right wing" has been blamed for terrorism, but when has it been true? McVeigh wasn't "right wing," but we got blamed anyway. They tried to pin Loughner in Tucson on Sarah Palin, and succeeded in many minds, but he wasn't "right wing" either.

[allmendream]

No, McVeigh was anti-government - and that was good enough for many (including Clinton) to blame right wing talk radio.

And Loughner was just a nut (and a left wing nut) but that was good enough for many to tell the right wing that they had to be “civil” and “tone down the rhetoric”.

My point is simple enough. If the terrorist is a Muslim there is one response, if the terrorist is right wing (or can be blamed on the right) there is a different response, and if the terrorist is left wing they are given a job as a University professor.