I'd certainly like someone from that side to try and explain it to us.

And, could a liberal at all explain this to you in any way that would be acceptable? Or, let me ask another way - what kind of explanation would you like to see? A mea culpa that says, "we're guilty"? Defiant resistance that confirms your bias?

I have a long response - an explanation, I guess - to this thread typed up, but I'm letting it ferment before I post it. If I do at all.

It's sort of like Politifact asserting Scott Walker wants to break the union and remove all collective bargaining rights, when none of those comments were made until Democratic lawmakers started breaking the law, the President of the United States started breaking the law, and the DNC started breaking the law.

Do you think weakening the union isn't even part of his intent here, Khross?

Why is the media coverage of the union protests not taking the whole "look at the rage" angle? Was it purposeful targeting of the Tea Party folks and purposeful non-reporting of the exact thing they were looking for (and not finding) showing up at these protests? After all the talk of "new tone" with the rhetoric after the AZ shooting, where is all the reporting of the "kill Walker", crosshairs, and Hitler (not to mention Hilter heheh) comparisons? I don't have any rational explanation, other than it being deliberately chosen by the media.

Weakening and breaking are not synonymous, RangerDave; to suggest so is both disingenuous and fractious.

Assuming you're right that the media isn't covering the anger/tone issue (I haven't been paying enough attention to know), I'd agree that it's probably driven partly by bias - angry rhetoric seems a lot less irrational and dangerous if you think it's justified. A left-leaning reporter who agrees with the union view but thinks the Tea Party folks had no legitimate grievance is probably going to see the latter in a much darker light than the former. Of course, the reverse holds true for right-leaning reporters, which is why the coverage by Fox News and other conservative outlets has been 180 degrees in the other direction.

I doubt that's the whole explanation though. I imagine novelty is also a factor. Union protesters being thuggish ain't exactly new (doesn't make it right, of course), whereas the Tea Party movement was arguably a new arrival on the political scene, so everyone was in a frenzy to categorize and define it and every little incident that might be "revealing" was breathlessly reported. Honestly, I think that's a huge part of it.

Also, and I know you're going to disagree with this one, I do think the potential for truly serious violence (e.g. murder, bombings, etc. as opposed to protesters committing vandalism) has been much higher on the far right than on the far left in the last 20-30 years. The militia movement, Oklahoma City, various attacks and murders from anti-abortion folks, etc. are all products of the right. What comparable acts of violence and terrorism have come from the left in the last couple decades? Tree-spiking and a handful of SUV dealerships being torched by eco-nuts, I suppose, but that's about it. So nowadays, when you have tens of thousands of people showing up at anti-government rallies and talking about "Second Amendment remedies", it sets off warning bells just like similar lefty rallies did back in the late 60s and early 70s.

My Congressman Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife… Remember Eric…our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you’re a Lucifer, you’re a pig, a greedy **** pig, you’re an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer’s abominations.

Discovery Channel Shooter comes to mind. I'd have to sit down and do more research, but I just got done doing that for class so my brain is kinda fried.

Not to mention certain Presidential Mentors wishing they did more bombing.