Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by loam

Soficrow, I simply cannot agree with your view.

It is very dangerous territory what you are suggesting. Absent EXPLICIT incitement (and even there I may have problems with that), impugning one's words as sufficient to give rise to culpability for the criminal actions of another is a certain recipe for tyranny.

I've thought about this for a few hours on and off. This is what I believe:

Having rights and exercising freedoms implies accepting responsibility and being accountable for the impacts of our speech and actions.

ALL of us need to know that everything we say and do DOES have an impact, in the least like a pebble thrown into a clear lake.

I fear that if we do not accept responsibility when we exercise our rights and act freely, then those willing to take responsibility for us WILL take our rights from us.

How many of your posts...or mine...should I quote that one might point to that matches the current standard you are using here?

I think we're both quite responsible - I'm not aware that either one of us has ever advocated violence. Change yes, violence no. ..If I have unwittingly phrased something in a way that seems to do so, then I admit I made a mistake.

Do we really want to go down this path?

I think we need to - else lose our rights and freedoms along with our responsibilities.

I get the objections to the distasteful nature of the political rhetoric. It appears on all sides. But assigning criminal culpability is not the way to go in terms of addressing it.

I firmly believe we need to hold our representatives to a MUCH higher standard than ordinary people. I also think the "rhetoric" in question is MUCH more than "distasteful."

reply to post by inforeal


Alarmist ! ...............You Know Not what you Preach here !

Originally posted by ZombieWoof

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

Didn’t you read the post? I said may have caused it. I also said is doesn’t matter because the guy may be nuts and anyone who causes an atmosphere of violent talk may have contributed to the guy’s mental deterioration.

The whole Palin angle is just propaganda being used not by those who hate Palin, but by those who fear she will ensure an Obama win in 2012.

Why in hell would god let the first woman president be sarah loser palin,get real,this has her name and the tea people written all over it.

And threads like this prove that the ATS is now on par with the msm. We have the usual suspect using a tradgedy to opine their idiocy on things like this to further their own adgenda. Funny, Palin must be one powerful person if her words have brought this about, as our lame ass president has been spouting violence for awhile and all he's accomplished is having the unions beat some people up. I guess it's to be expected, but threads like these are really no different than what Phelos and his ilk say..............

reply to post by soficrow


Before I begin, I just want to say how much I love having you back posting on the boards.

It's really good to see that.

Originally posted by soficrow
Having rights and exercising freedoms implies accepting responsibility and being accountable for the impacts of our speech and actions.

ALL of us need to know that everything we say and do DOES have an impact, in the least like a pebble thrown into a clear lake.

I completely agree with you....and where social accountability comes into play, I'm all for that. My problem arises when we make that authoritative accountability. I do not sufficiently trust the government to decide when such associations are loose enough to avoid prosecution.

Originally posted by soficrow
I fear that if we do not accept responsibility when we exercise our rights and act freely, then those willing to take responsibility for us WILL take our rights from us.

Again, utilizing authoritative enforcement already gets us there. It would be impossible to sufficiently define a standard that wouldn't get abused.

Some stuff is just not fixable by government...and when we let them try, tyranny always follows.

Originally posted by soficrow
I think we're both quite responsible - I'm not aware that either one of us has ever advocated violence. Change yes, violence no. ..If I have unwittingly phrased something in a way that seems to do so, then I admit I made a mistake.

How do you know? If you follow where some on these boards are drawing the line, any one of us who has posted here is at risk.

Originally posted by soficrow
I firmly believe we need to hold our representatives to a MUCH higher standard than ordinary people.

I agree- by ceasing to re-elect them.

Hi guys, sorry I am late so my apology if this was already discussed:

Anyone have an idea or can investigate where and by whom Gifford's name was crossed in red on the crosshair hit list?

Here's how it appeared on the internet after it was taken down on Palin's site:

Palin's lack-luster career and future with regard to US Politics are done. Thank God.

Decoy

Looks like the obviously guilty shooter is now being made out to be the victim here.
A classic left wing ploy.
Just sickening.

Honestly, people should put this in perspective.

What if it was a Muslim's website with the crosshairs, and the shooting happened?

The Muslim whose site it was would indefinitely be tracked down immediately and detained and interrogated.

Guys....as stupid as Palin was for having crosshairs on Democrats locations; it's just a stupid decision to have that, and she obviously owes an apology, but I really don't believe there's any conspiracy in this one.

Just one nutjob who got his hands on a gun.

reply to post by stonedlax


Excellent point to these hypocrites who never want to live by what they impose on others!

Originally posted by inforeal

It doesn’t matter whether this assassin was a left winger, right winger or apolitical, it is his mental state that is the question and famous people who use inflammatory rhetoric like Palin can affect all kinds of people and particularly the mentally deranged.

Correct. However, when the government looses too much of its control over its compliant citizens, err, I meant, gets away with too much corruption and such, then by all means "free speech" is necessary even if it means to give the nuttiest of society's nutballs some "visual images".

Technically, it would appear that she is guilty for not providing non-violent means and instead suggest "targeting" several public servants in that manner via her website. (Like a parent, a good role model would not want their children to "take up arms" to solve problems.)

But I don't like Democrats playing dirty and making this event yet another political stunt to remove guns from the hands of those who are "nutty" enough to defend this country and whatever is left of the constitution created by "fellow brothers".

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Ofcourse Julian A that is not what this thread is about. It is about the radical left trying to blame palin for the kook who committed murder in Arizona. Usually they blame guns for murdering people. Now they are blaming Americans they hate for the murders committed by others.

I personally dislike Palin but I am not going to permit Obama/Soros radicals to claim tea party political speech is "dangerous" and "hate" and must be controlled and supressed by them on the air waves and Internet via the FCC. (Obama gave himself the power to murder enemies of the state, by the way, so don't blame stupid Palin for suggesting he use the barbaric, unconstitutional power he grabbed to take out JA.)

Obama's radicals lost the election because of free speech and they know, like all Marxists, they can not hold power when free speech permitted in a Nation. That is what this thread is about. If it were the other side of kooks demanding leftists be denied their free speech rights to "win" political power, I would be raising cain about that too. No wacko yapper is worth losing free speech for.

Man, imagine the convulsions on here if Mitch McConnell or Sir John of Orange had been the one attacked. The rightwing would be gargling on their own lather and demanding the eradication of whatever they could run down as being guilty of causing it. Hell, they tried blaming the voter intimidation of two black guys wearing leather coats who were standing around outside an inner city housing projects polling station for Obama's 2008 election victory. The "New Black Pathers Party" - all two of them.

If this hit had been on a GOP Rep, the whole nation would be under attack by Liberal terrorists. FEMA camps would be springing up all over the place and Walmart would be out of ammo. Mailmen would be shot dead all over Red State America by this time tommorow evening. "He come right up the walk on me. I had no choice but to defend my Constitutional Rights as an American."

I really find it hard to believe anyone had the time to come here and cry about poor Palin and Angle's free speech when Charlie Manson is still in jail for saying things. Are you guys getting on that or really just insincere about all this?

What's ridiculous is that the facts are against this assertion.

There are NO factual ties between Sarah Palin and the shooter. There are NO factual ties between SarahPac and the shooter. There is NO evidence of any kind that the shooter had anything to do with the Tea Party. There is NO evidence of any kind that the shooter had a coherent political ideology. All personality witnesses with respect to the character of the shooter has illustrated a history of mental illness and lashing out.


What you posit in this thread is disgusting political opportunism and you and everyone like you who promotes this tripe should be ashamed of yourselves and the mess you're helping create by dragging Palin, the Tea Party, or Republicans in general into a mess where there is NO evidence any of these people were even loosely involved.

AZ gun policies didn't do this. This person PASSED HIS BACKGROUND CHECK. So what does that mean? It means it's a failure of government that's what. It's a failure to share information that for all intents and purposes should have been available to those doing the Federal Background Check. The size of the magazine does not matter. You may think it does, but that just proves how little you know about anything gun related.

Good god people the site motto is "deny ignorance" not "mainline it".

Originally posted by soficrow

I've thought about this for a few hours on and off. This is what I believe:

Having rights and exercising freedoms implies accepting responsibility and being accountable for the impacts of our speech and actions.

A very intelligent and commendable statement.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by inforeal

 

How many of these threads do we need?

Enough so that people will learn that you don't kill, or target for killing, someone just for his/her political ideas.

This thread is a prime example of a fallacious argument.

Of course she ISN'T guilty. It IS bad publicity and I can see this being used on "Saturday Night Live," complete with "cross-hair" graphics. I do want to know more details about Mrs. Palin vs. Giffords feudal exchange which was never report by "Main Stream Media."

Interesting...

reply to post by loam


And I love reading your posts and talking to you.

...I'm not quite clear on your position and also, need to clarify my own. Briefly, I think the Constitution is on the table for the North American Union negotiations, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Every notable event will be spun to rationalize curtailing or modifying those Rights and Freedoms in order to close the deal with Canada - from the Wikileaks' to the Palin scandals - and I don't want to add fuel to that fire. So please, DO give a heads-up if I'm stepping into any bear-traps.

* Are you saying that we are responsible and accountable for the direct results of our speech and actions, but not for the indirect impacts?

* Not clear on how you distinguish "social" and "authoritative" accountability.

Thanks, sofi

reply to post by Echtelion


But the facts say that's not what went on here...

In fact no one but political zealots are saying that
this had anything to do with Sarah Palin.

Also, what evidence is there that Sarah Palin called
for the murder of a public official? Are you inferring intent by the
graphic on a website? What intent can be surmised by this graphic?

This is from the DNC:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e49ce7b94634.jpeg[/atsimg]

Well that's awfully inconvenient!