Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


But it isn't sad to you that the weakest of associations are sufficient to indict someone with the criminal actions of another?

Man, this place is much further along than even I ever realized.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
LOL, a random twitter account claims to "know the shooter" and divulges his political leanings to a heavily right-wing media blog. Puh-leeze. I'm sure they will be a random twitter account claiming on some left-wing media blog to also know the shooter and that he had a statue of Glen Beck carved from cheese sitting in his living room.

Sad day in America when a TWIT (tweet?) becomes proof of anything.

Even sadder when people try to blame Palin when she wasn't even the one that pulled the trigger.

Whatever happened to accountability?

reply to post by loam


If I painted a target/crosshairs on your picture or name, or one of your families picture; would that seem like a threat to you or your loved one? You know perfectly well that it could be logically construed as a threat of violence.

Apparently Palin saw it as threatening or else she would have left the picture up. This right wing damage control is so transparent.

And what will the hateful rhetoric from the likes of Rush, Bork, Sean, Savage, Levin, Medved, Mancow, Hal Turner, ORilley, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter eventually lead? To healing and unity? It's time the right wing take responsibility for their divisiveness.

Of course Palin didn't pull the trigger but her attitude is mean spirited and violent and could very well push some devotee of hers over the brink into more incidences of what happened today.

reply to post by Alxandro

OK, if the shooter danced his way in before going on a shooting frenzy then YES, it was Palin's fault . But he didn't, he was just another left wing lunatic with a gun.

Your first sentence was funny. Your second sentence is BS propaganda. You should learn to quit while you're ahead.

reply to post by whaaa

Originally posted by whaaa
If I painted a target/crosshairs on your picture or name, or one of your families picture; would that seem like a threat to you or your loved one? You know perfectly well that it could be logically construed as a threat of violence.

Except Palin didn't exactly do any of that, did she? Her website had a map with crosshairs on the races she wanted her candidates to win.

I've never said that was in good taste or good form. In fact, I find it very distasteful. But I will not go so far as to say the selection of that map graphic is sufficient to make her criminally culpable for these shootings.

Originally posted by whaaa
Apparently Palin saw it as threatening or else she would have left the picture up. This right wing damage control is so transparent.

You're right. It is damage control. Political damage control. That, however, does not equate to an admission of culpability. What would you have preferred they do? Leave the graphic up after the shootings? What would you have said then?

Originally posted by whaaa
And what will the hateful rhetoric from the likes of Rush, Bork, Sean, Savage, Levin, Medved, Mancow, Hal Turner, ORilley, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter eventually lead?

Search my post history on any of the above... You will find no disagreement from me on that distasteful bunch of liars.

But my original point stands.

In the absence of EXPRESS incitement, blaming one's political rhetoric for the criminal actions of another sets us down a very dangerous path. In fact, should any one of the names above meet an untimely demise as a result of the actions of someone from ATS, should you or others be held accountable for your posts? I've seen some pretty nasty things said about that group-- some of them even by me.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by loam

 

My position is based on the fact that Sarah Palin, because of her popularity, has responsibilities as a human being to foster human interactions that don’t symbolize any violence towards people.
What if the pope or other world leaders used such epithets towards people?

If Obama did the same thing I would denounce him as well.

Acutally, when Obama saw the strength and power of the Tea Parties leading up to the health care vote, he freaked out and told his supporters to go out and oppose the Tea Party protestors and "don't take a knife to a gun fight." Following this speech to a union group, union members started showing up at Tea Parties and attacking people. It did not do Obama any good as Americans are not intimidated by black shirt wannabes and the videos of the attacks were seen by the public on the Internet. Another lie was revealed. As Alinsky advises: Accuse your opponents of what you do.

It is dangerous when a President is so radical he dreams of creating a civilian army (just as well trained and armed as the US military) to be at his beck and call for political purposes. It is dangerous when a President permits his supporters to slander and demonize his political opposition as if they have no right to oppose him - that opposing him is "hate." It is dangerous when a President uses Homeland Security to classify his political opponents as domestic terrorists like Obama has done.

The Left and the administration have overplayed the hate game now. This little political dance in the blood of the victims in Arizona is not going to serve them as they hope. They are without class and untrustworthy. They are the ones inciting political violence against Palin and everyone else they hate.

Originally posted by inforeal
No one for one minute believes that the assassin went out and shot those people for Sarah Plain’s causes.

That’s not the issue at all. The issue simply is her violent rhetoric can and may have connected with a man who is mentally unstable; and it can happen again.

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.

I’m happy she finally has the sense to take down that rhetoric about reloading and putting human beings she doesn’t agree with in crosshairs.

I don’t believe a logical sane follower of Palin would ever assassinate anyone.
But if one has the ear of millions of people as Palin does then she should have the sense to refrain from such rhetoric, but she obviously doesn’t.

Of course now she takes down the site that has those inflammatory words toward democrats. That alone is an admission that it was wrong and immoral to do in the first place.

Gimme a break. Like I posted in another thread. This logic is just like saying tv or games MAKE people violent. I bet most of the people who are trying to childishly blame this on Palin, would call this kid a hero if he took out a prominent Republician. They are probably the same people who burned Bush in effigy, but cried and screamed when someone disagrees with Obama. Gabrielle was more of a republican than most republicans are (in spirit). This kid was messed up, Palin had NOTHING to do with it. She probably saw the liberals coming with their torches and pitchforks from miles away, and that's why she took the site down.

Hmm. It's amazing how many people on the news are already spinning this as Right-wing inspired violence. From Sarah Palin of all places. Children are brought up, and have been brought up with easy access to violent rhetoric and material for longer than I've been alive. How can anyone say Sarah Palin just set this guy off? Even if he was some right-wing nut, he's obviously been so for longer than Palins been famous. I say we serve this guy and his supposed buddy (if he exists) that long-walk cocktail and blame those with the bad judgement to do this. Hopefully everyone who counts will realize that this rhetoric is severe missuse of a tradgedy.

To the people that think Palin had something to do with this.

Do you think that this guys pot smoking had anything to do with it?

Or are some influences more expedient than others?

reply to post by WeRpeons

When you're mentally unstable "personal responsibility and accountability" isn't part of their reality. I think the OP's point is, any kind of political rhetoric can have an impression on unstable minds.

So that being said, all the hate Sarah Palin threads could have exactly the same results,

I have never seen a person so hated by both sides, it is hard to fully understand.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


B I N G O.

Amazing how proponents of the Pailin-is-at-fault-crowd can't see that.

I've made this very point several times now in several threads.

The truth is they ignore this point because it gets in the way of their ability to exploit this tragedy to make a political point.

Pathetic, really.

reply to post by sara123123

This little political dance in the blood of the victims in Arizona is not going to serve them as they hope.

amazing statement.

reply to post by inforeal


Judas Priest did not make them boys commit suicide in the 80's.

this assassin made a choice.

what did it gain us except more lock down to come.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

B I N G O.

Amazing how proponents of the Pailin-is-at-fault-crowd can't see that.

I've made this very point several times now in several threads.

The truth is they ignore this point because it gets in the way of their ability to exploit this tragedy to make a political point.

Pathetic, really.

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

I was trying to defuse the situation myself last night, until the hate filled rhetoric literally made me physically ill.

reply to post by zroth

Originally posted by zroth
more lock down to come.

You can bank upon it!

Perhaps the most authentic 'prediction' ever placed on these boards.

I fear we're witnessing a big slide down the slippery slope....

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I hear you!

I was playing that game myself in several simultaneous threads.

Sad.

reply to post by inforeal


So now, we all have to watch what any of us say. Because someone, somewhere might misconstrue it as a reason to harm someone, right?
If you said something that triggered another person, then you'd be guilty as well, correct?

If you wore something, said something, made something that triggered a psychotic break, then you'd be guilty as well, right?

So don't write books, don't post words, don't speak out loud, don't paint pictures, don't sing songs, don't make movies. . . . . because you'd be guilty.


Right?

reply to post by beezzer


Is it really crazy to suggest that if you cannot talk about politics without resorting to the context of having someone hunted and killed, maybe you should not speak out in public?

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Alxandro

 

OK, if the shooter danced his way in before going on a shooting frenzy then YES, it was Palin's fault . But he didn't, he was just another left wing lunatic with a gun.

Your first sentence was funny. Your second sentence is BS propaganda. You should learn to quit while you're ahead.

And you don't think trying to blame Palin is not BS propaganda?
You should learn not to be so selective in these matters.

reply to post by beezzer


very good point.

I might also add that we should all stop shopping at Target. Or at least politicians should, cause it might give someone an idea!