Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by curiousladdy


Palin is absolutely innocent. The nut who pulled the trigger is guilty.
-- Personal responsibility and accountability --
Nice try.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by curiousladdy

 

Palin is absolutely innocent. The nut who pulled the trigger is guilty.
-- Personal responsibility and accountability --
Nice try.

Palin is only guilty of being stupid for using crosshairs in political material and she will pay the price.

I wonder if she will take personal responsibility for being stupid?

Palin does have a hardcore group of supporters but moderates have bailed on her candidacy long ago before this foolish move.

reply to post by inforeal


Hate to break it to you but the assailant was definitely a Left leaning liberal. Next time do your homework before step on the soapbox!

reply to post by whaaa


We shall see who pays the price November 2012.
Time will tell.
----------------------------
It will mainly depend on the unemployment rate.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by whaaa

 

We shall see who pays the price November 2012.
Time will tell.
----------------------------
It will mainly depend on the unemployment rate.

I completely agree....it is about the economy

But the mean spirited rhetoric from the likes of Beck, Rush, Bork, Coulter, Sean, Savage, Levin, Medved, Mancow, Hal Turner, ORilley, and Ingram won't help their cause from moderates. And it's moderates that determine the elections. I'm willing to bet the use of crosshairs in political ads has seen it's day. And I'll also bet that the hateful political rhetoric from the above mentioned will tone down except from Savage who is a fringe stroker of the first order.

I think that the most violent rhetoric that I hear is from the left leaning members of society.

When Bush was in office there was a continual rant about hating Bush. Bush was blamed for everything.

I also here the rhetoric from the right leaning members of society.

But, to blame the tea party or right wing radio hosts is just plane stupid.

Why was it when Major Nidal Hasan massacred people at fort Hood Texas the major news anchors were calling for patience to find out what really happened yet when someone shots a congressperson the media focuses on the "right" wing politicians? Is this really just a cheap political shot?

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot


Who was a Member of AMren and was anti semitc and anti Immigration???

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

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.

She would only be a president by proxy anyway.

She would be the puppet of this man>

reply to post by ipsedixit

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by soficrow
I agree, absolutely. But you are talking about "modifying" the Constitution to include preventive and "anticipatory" legislation - which is what Canada has, I believe. (Rights with qualifications. :dn

I'm no expert on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

laws.justice.gc.ca...-ga:l_I-gb:s_2

but I believe that the American Constitution is a more fundamental document, philosophically speaking, i.e., that it reaches down to the bedrock of what a human being should expect on this planet in a social contract.

The Canadian charter implies the pre-existence of the "bedrock" of an established federal government and supplies a social contract for interaction with that government. Canadians have no established right to bear arms.

The criminal "community", of course, is completely unfazed by this and acknowledges no limits of any sort on what it can and cannot do.

You've nailed it pretty well.

In addition to Canadians not having the right to bear arms, Canada has definitive "restrictions" on Freedom of Speech and the Press.

...That's the direction this all is headed, imho, to "harmonize" US and Canadian law and close the deal on the North American Union.

This is a heart wrenching video, but it further illustrates the point:

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by curiousladdy

 

Palin is absolutely innocent. The nut who pulled the trigger is guilty.
-- Personal responsibility and accountability --
Nice try.

Palin is Innocent ?!

You Americans have lost the plot....... you believe the world owes you and that you can do no wrong....... Now that 'attitude' has permeated your OWN political system with the publishing of the Crosshairs map.. Your continued belief in the 'rule of the gun' is the most important thing a citizen can have is PATHETIC !

The guy who pulled the trigger IS guilty BUT your society, the very same you are pushing everywhere as the ''NORM'' is also at fault and only when you step back and look at what you have created ( poor standards, little morals and ethics, greed and gluttony) will you understand why alot of the planet dislikes America.........

Before you start, this is my observation and does not necessarily tell you of my Opinions..

Regards

PDUK

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


"the world owes you and you can do no wrong"
Where did you get that???
The Huffington Post?
Stop drinking the cool aid.
Go for a walk and calm down.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


From traveling the world with my eyes 'open' and generally interacting with people as opposed to telling them what to do...

Regards

PDUK

Originally posted by soficrow
In addition to Canadians not having the right to bear arms, Canada has definitive "restrictions" on Freedom of Speech and the Press.

...That's the direction this all is headed, imho, to "harmonize" US and Canadian law and close the deal on the North American Union.

One of the unfortunate recent deveopments in Canadian politics has been the creation of a "human rights commission" that has made a business of responding to people and groups who believe that they have been the subject of speech or writing which serves to incite hatred of them. This is an unelected body with the power to sanction violations of Canada's "hate speech" legislation with fines.

There has been a lot of fuss over this. A columnist for MacLeans Magazine, (a Canadian version of Time or Newsweek) had a celebrated run in with them. I think he managed to escape without a fine. I don't really know the details in that case.

I know that many Canadians are very unhappy with the way this human rights commission has been operating. The whole Muslim question enters into it because of the way that criticism of Mohammed or Allah or the Koran is not permitted in Muslim societies. A western Canadian newspaper editor published some of the notorious cartoons lampooning Mohammed, drawn by a Danish cartoonist, and I believe this editor also ran afoul of the human rights commission.

There are numerous dimensions to the free speech issue up here that go beyond what was the original intention of this commission, i.e, protecting minorities from bigotry. They have moved on to protecting anyone from legitimate criticism if the criticism is hard edged.

I don't know how it will all turn out.

You do make an interesting point, though, when you bring in the umbrella notion of harmonizing the laws in the "area of the Americas."

I just wanted to add, on the subject of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that one would not be too far off to regard it as a species of "thought police". The most irritating thing about it though, to Canadians, who are like their American neighbors in never really bothering to think much anyway, is the arbitrary nature of its forays into policing thought.

They do it only upon receipt of a complaint, if I am correct. Squeaky wheels get the grease. Consequently they aren't really an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth", but more like an Dickensian "beadle" of the politically correct.

As an example, recently one of the harridans at the Toronto Star spent two or three days ripping new ones for the Toronto Chief of Police over his handling of the investigation of police brutality at last summer's G-20 conference. (Part of the Star's new "watchdog journalism" policy.)

I'm sure that by the end of the week, most Torontonians hated the guy, but being the big broad shouldered brute that he is, he took his licking and didn't go to the Human Rights Commission. Not every member of every group criticized is going to react the same way.

It's the lack of a standard of enforcement that annoys people.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by inforeal

 

Originally posted by inforeal
What should scare you is your understanding capacity—it is lacking.

Really?

Did Palin say those people should be assassinated? Or did you just simply conveniently connect the dots because it serves a political perspective you have?

Am I to be concerned now that something I may have posted here on this board could incite someone to violence? Will you be part of the government team to come snatch me in the middle of the night from my home because my threads are too critical of someone or something?

And you have the gall to assert my comprehension is lacking?

Simpleton math.

Perspectives like your invite tyranny.

*********************

EDITED to add:

Here... 30 seconds of simple searching:

A History Of Obama’s Violent Rhetoric

1. “Whose Ass To Kick”

...

2. Bring a Gun to A Knife Fight

...

3. “Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face”

...

4. “I don’t want to quell anger… I’m angry!”

...

5. “Get out of the way”

...

6. “Gearing up for a Fight”

...

7. “Hit Back Twice As Hard”

or this PRECISE example

I'm sure if I spent another 30 seconds, I could find even more. But you wont see me making the same feeble argument you've made.

edit on 9-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

Sean Hannity must read be a lurker here because he just said repeated "Obama's violent rhetoric" verbatim.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK

You Americans have lost the plot....... you believe the world owes you and that you can do no wrong....... Now that 'attitude' has permeated your OWN political system with the publishing of the Crosshairs map.. Your continued belief in the 'rule of the gun' is the most important thing a citizen can have is PATHETIC !

So instead, should we riot? Or work off our frustrations with life by becoming Soccer Hooligans? IMO the UK & the US share this: both built an empire, & the only difference between the two is that the American Empire has not yet quite fallen. That, & if the people here don't wake up, the US will follow the UK, which is just a bit further down the road to decline than is the US.

I try to avoid making this kind of post on message boards most of the time, but an outcry against the US forcing its will on other countries, coming from someone in the UK, with its history, strikes me as being kinda silly.

I find it funny that the left has used maps with targets on them for awhile now too, and yet only the right is held accountable. This guy did what did by himself, for his own reasons............get over it.

theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com...

reply to post by BuzzCory


BuzzCory

You make a fairpoint but I'm sure you will agree that American Politics is a lot 'further' down the road than anything I could offer you....

Regards

PDUK

reply to post by PurpleDog UK

You make a fairpoint but I'm sure you will agree that American Politics is a lot 'further' down the road than anything I could offer you....

I'm afraid I can't agree, given the number of public surveillance cameras that festoon some of your cities. However, I'm afraid we'll catch up to you in that regard before long. Every event such as this one serves to hasten the day.
I do appreciate the civility of your reply, though; thanks for that, & I'm pleased to return the consideration.