1. Liam wrote:

While the Tea Party and its leaders are not necessarily advocates of violence, their irresponsible use of violent language and imagery is nonetheless dangerous.

Public discourse and practice? Any suggestions?

2. William wrote:

I attended a Tea Party Protest on 4/15/2010, with my two teenage daughters, and found the people there to be overly and exceedingly polite, and that included towards a few anti-Tea Party protesters that were there. (Santa Clarita, CA) Disagreeing with POLICY does not make one an advocate of violence, that is simply ridiculous and makes the Left look feeble. Civil and respectful discourse is the only way. And why is the media not reporting the only ACTUAL acts of violence have been committed by the Left (G-20, etc)?

3. Tina wrote:

Wow. For a professor, you left out a major part called Waco. Your arguments have been stated in every liberal blog (and you said Fox news repeats the same thing). Does gansta rap cause violence in the inner-city? The statements made in this blog are not trying to equate the Tea Party with the atmosphere of 15 years ago, but with some pre-civil war mentality (the rich slave owners manipulating poor whites to fight for a system that they did not benefit from). The New York Times stated that the Tea Partiers are wealthier and more educated than the average citizen, but you still relay the false narrative of these people being ignorant. Being a professor, please state facts.

4. Alex wrote:

The tea parties have been out there for quite a while now. Name a single act of violence, anything at all. There haven’t been any. But according to you, we should still see these peaceful people as potential terrorists. Meanwhile, when you see real violence from other protesters, like against Arizona’s new law, you will ignore the damage that has been caused.

No offense, but people like you should not teach anywhere. You spread racism and intolerance. And then our children end up the same way. You are, however, a very likable guy. If only you could be more open-minded.

5. Richard Rhodes wrote:

Have the people at this site who comment not figured it out yet. Calling this clown a professor is a joke. And isn’t it nice how he can make horrible statements like the ones above and not be called what he is. This guy is an idiot and a racist. But what do I expect. There is one now living in the White House.

6. Rapsheetz wrote:

@William
The G20 riots and the problems in greece were thoroughly covered by the media. Do you read the WSJ or do you just skim through it.
@Tina
Yes in some instances Gang Rap does instigate Violence in the inner city. Not only that but Dr. Hill clearly stated in the article that Mcveigh was a fringe outfit of the conservative movement fueled by the nonsence rantings of the conservative talking heads and encouraged by the uninformed followers. And if you actually agree with Rush, King of the sound bite, Limbaugh you are uninformed.
@Richard
On what grounds do you question Dr hills scholarly achievements? If hes a clown than your the baby seal that dances on an oversized ball and plays synchronized bicycle horns while wearing a dunce cap.

but thats just my opinion

7. Nelson wrote:

So much college preparation and dumb at the same time. So much PhD for nothing. Every time he open his mouth noting good comes out. I can’t see him as a professor, basically brainwashing our youth.

8. Tina wrote:

Rapsheetz, you read my comment, but you do not understand. Read about Timothy McVeigh. Right-wing rhetoric was not a major factor in Oklahoma City. It was Clinton’s AG mishandling of Waco. That is a fact and that fact was not included in Dr. Hill’s blog. Instead he gave his biased opinion (what evidence does he present) on the subject. I expect a professor to be fair and accurate. This blog was not.