Speech and violence: whither courtesy?

   Here's what I don't understand. Help me out here. Really.
   How is it that liberals are always claiming they are more compassionate because they want to take everyone's money and give it to other people, whether those other people need it or not. 
  OTOH, conservatives often give voluntarily more of their own income to many charities and churches than liberals are known to give but don't want the government taking their dollars and deciding for them who gets it.
  So one group talks up a storm about being kind and generous but doesn't do it themselves while the other, always under fire, does. Quietly.
  And when it comes to speech, whatever one side says is shocking! racist! violent! while whatever the other side says, however violent, is okay. 
  It's ok to say If they bring a knife we'll bring a gun. 
  Or "hit back twice as hard."
  Or to talk about punishing your enemies, something that has proven to be true not just metaphorically but through policy more than once.
  But if someone says something like this from Politico, carefully indicating it's metaphorical--: 

Romney continued, “We’re going to hang him — ” before stopping mid-sentence.“So to speak — metaphorically,” he clarified. “You have to be careful.”---

  --it's racist because the speaker is encouraging lynching of a black man. [???]
  So apparently language is important.
  But wait! but wait!
  Then how do we explain the apparent disconnect when it comes to vile and hateful speech on the part of the supposedly compassionate group with regard to those who disagree with them, or even in, say, the death and destruction a tornado wreaks on a community? 
  Weasel Zippers, who scours the bowels of the internet for this stuff, has the pics of trash talking the Alabama tornado victims from the Washington Post bowels. Here's a sample:

  Notice that this entry is also liked by 8 readers. 

  Yet Romney's language was so offensive, it's the buzz of the internet. 

  From Legal Insurrection, who always has enough examples to run a weekly Saturday night [race] card game post:

Really. Here is some media/blogosphere reaction to what is being portrayed as a major "gaffe":

• HuffPo: "Mitt Romney's camp is attempting to do damage control after the presidential aspirant made controversial remarks in criticizing President Barack Obama during a stop in New Hampshire on Friday night.

• Boston Globe: Romney clarifies as he proposes to 'hang' Obama with misery index.

• Raw Story: "In a speech at the pro-GOP Americans for Prosperity dinner, former Massachusetts governor and contender for the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney said he would "hang" Obama, then immediately realized his gaffe and tried to smooth over his mistake."

• Politico: "Any reference to hanging — however unintentional — would be especially loaded in a campaign against the country's first black president, as Romney apparently recognized."

• Daily News: "Mitt Romney scrambled to do some damage control after he suggested it was time to "hang" President Obama in a speech in New Hampshire Friday night.

  So explain to me how all this makes sense, because I just don't get it. It doesn't make sense, this cognitive disconnect between speech and reality.
  Perhaps the anonymity of the internet allows people to reveal what's really in their minds and hearts, and that's why they feel comfortable saying such disgusting things about human beings.
  It's harder to explain how government officials can publicly get away with what they do, with impunity.
  UPDATE: Daily Caller. Funny how God has a place in their world again.