I saw on the news this morning that Palin has rehased a old story about a restraining order against a ‘stalker’. Wow- that was fast. 48 hours?
Yes.
But the “targeting” of those individuals was for defeat at the polls, not for being shot. Again I point to similar iconography used by the Democrats. “Targeting” a Representative or Senator for special efforts to defeat at the polls is quite common, and was being done when Palin was entering kindergarten.
No, I think the obvious lie about surveyors marks was inappropriate. But apart from that, yes. There are things I wish she’d do BETTER, but in terms of inappropriate, that’s it.
That’s it. Two simple questions. Feel free to elaborate however you wish, but yes or no to each question will suffice.
[/QUOTE]
Predictably, and justifiably.
Fuck me, I hate to have to defend the loathsome harpy but damn it she’s got a point. Poor taste or not, the use of a crosshair logo to mark that a state is your target is not a call to murder. If the use of a metaphorical device like that can be held as promoting violence then we, as a species, are so unbalanced that we might as well give up now.
It really is quite sickening to see a tragic event like this being seized for such a preposterous smear.
Sickening is a bunch of people being shot for no reason. A politician whining about her rhetoric being misinterpreted is annoying.
Well, not to whip out national tragedies in some sort of national tragedy measuring contest, but the mortar attack and the sword attack were attempts, not assassinations. And speaking of bumper years, I looked for US 2010 spree shootings and I couldn’t believe all I found. Shark attacks get more media coverage. I suppose shark attacks are a lot rarer.
There was the The ABB plant shootings, 5 dead.
The Ohio State University shooting, which only had one fatality, so the Wiki page is pretty sketchy.
The Appomattox shootings Wiki page is also short, but Speight killed 8 people. He was declared incompetent to stand trial. Apparently he looked competent enough when he bought guns, he had heaps.
The University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting I actually remember despite a relatively low body count (“only” 3 dead), probably because the shooter was Amy Bishop Anderson, PhD, mother of four and batshit crazy. In America these days you really have to try a little harder if you want to stand out in the field of spree killing. Looks like she got away with murder with a firearm once before.
Jesse Warren also allegedly killed three in the Penske shootings but his article is an orphan.
Mumford High School shooting. No fatalities, hooray, but it was on a fucking playground. The Wiki article mentions two other recent school shootings in Detroit.
This is just what I could find with a quick search, mind. Maybe it’s fairly comprehensive, but probably not.
Since that didn’t really speak to your point: there are two different issues here. Blaming conservatives for making this happen is premature and in bad taste. (So is the pre-emptive ‘don’t let the liberals use this against us’ nonsense.) Asking if it’s possible some of the moronic, violent rhetoric we’ve heard in the last couple of years could have contributed to this is an entirely rational question. I don’t know if the answer is yes, but there’s nothing wrong with the question. I don’t think any of this bullshit about reloading and Second Amendment remedies was intended to inspire murder, but that’s not the only issue. The question is whether this violent, paranoid fearmongering helped cause this to happen.
The crosshair thingie is typical political rhetoric.
Here is a political advertisement with Democrat Joe Manchin shooting a rifle, suggesting that he is targeting his opponent. I think his add is a lot more provactive than Palin’s.
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2011/01/senator-joe-manchin-talks-guns-and-politics/
Fair is fair. All politicians have done this at one time.
Anything can set off a nut. This Gifford shooter was a fan of mein kampf and other socialist/communist doctrines, he smoked pot, did drugs, was into the occult (does that sound Leftist?) and has listed himself as an independent voter. Although he did not vote in the last election.
He has been stalking Gifford since 2007. Maybe she looked like an ex girlfriend who refused to date him and her lack of response to him set him off. A nut is a nut is a nut… If we start restricting everything that a might set off a nut, we won’t be able to make a peep. Anything can set one off
I had a hard drive once that started whining at me. A disk check revealed it to be one of the most corrupt drives in recent memory.
Naturally I 86’d the darn thing, possibly after hitting it with a seven pound sledge.
This has the stink of desperate equivalency about it, and it just doesn’t wash.
Manchin never even mentions his opponent, and specifically says he is taking “dead aim” at the cap and trade bill. There is no ‘suggestion’ of shooting anybody.
How does shooting a piece of paper with “cap and trade” on it imply anything about Manchin’s opponent? Sorry, MoGlow, that’s not even close to the same thing.
The thing that irritates me the most about this board is that I find myself compelled to defend idiots like Palin, because the herd of lemmings charging hard left here are worse. It’s not enough to legitimately observe she’s an idiot about nineteen things; this board’s population had to insist that she was utterly wrong in saying the Vice-President is “in charge of” the Senate, a completely defensible phrase. I make no judgments of her personally, but intellectually, she doesn’t have the heft to compete on the national political scene, and she repeatedly proves it.
So I’d be happy to spend my time pointing out what an idiot she is… but that’s not enough for this crowd. No, they have to announce, in outraged tones, that she refuses to take responsibility for someone shooting a US Congressional Representative point-blank in the head.
And in fact, she’s NOT responsible. She shouldn’t “take responsibility.”
Oh my that sounds like a hypocritical rationalization.
If you are going to condemn one advertisement that might provoke a nut, you have to condemn all advertisments.
IMO, Manchins visual is more provoking than a simple crosshair symbol.
But, again, as mentioned, if society is going to start prohibiting all types of possibly provocative speech, no one will be able to say anything.
The political stuff likely had nothing to do with this guy’s shooting. I’m guessing he felt dismissed by her.
In any case, Gifford’s shooter is a mein kampf fan, so I doubt he is a tea party supporter as some of the loud liberal left is trying to proclaim.
Using this tragedy as a way to prevent free speech to fit the deperate democrats political agenda will likely backfire. So, I am just laughing my but off, while the leftist loons scream.
Personally, I do agree that there is too much mud slinging in campaigns. I think they should all have to debate on TV and they must both spend equal time and money. None of this BS who ever has the most money to spend on a campaign wins. That’s BS. The politician would serve the people best by having equal air time to make their point of views knonw.
Whistle past the graveyard much? I think this has really gotten under your skin, and you can’t find a really effective way of countering the prevailing conclusion that right-wing rhetoric encourages violence. I am quite sure you are sweating cold bullets while pretending to laugh.
He says he’s taking dead aim at the cap and trade bill and then shoots a piece of paper with “cap and trade” written on it. It’s provocative, and he does use some of that ‘I’ll protect us from the government’ talk - but then again that talk is centuries old. No, shooting a piece of paper is not as provocative as talking about an armed rebellion.
That’s a mindless personal ad hominem attack and alas it’s still a hypocritical rationalization. All provocative advertisements played a role. Finger pointing is childish
I thought you were concerned about provocative rhetoric. Yet, here you are using it. Let’s not make this personal by insulting another member here
The dems know Obama is going to lose in 2012. and he knows it and so do all the Dems.
It does not matter if Mickey mouse in the middle east donates a thousand times to Obama’s campaign, while officials look the other way. Obama is toast in 2012 as a winner. I doubt Obama will even run. Wanna’ Pinky bet?
I think your argument is “if some rhetoric was violent, then all rhetoric is violent.” Do you need someone to explain why that’s stupid?
Where did you get that idea? We are talking about violent imagery used by the right. Show me where the left issues “conservative hunting permits” and talks about reloading after an election goes bad, or spilling the blood of tyrants. These are violent images that are not found on the left. To listen to the right, we are afraid of guns, and would never think of touching one. Now you are trying to put them in our hands and say we are just as bad as your guys? It is to laugh.
OoooH! Another rude ad hominem attack. let’s not make this provocatively personal my friend, even though such hypocrisy validates my point, rather nicely.
Do you see why the provocative ads likely had nothing to do with his attack? Have you bothered to research the shooters history and contact with Gifford?
Let’s see, when you are dealing with a paranoid schizophrenic reality has nothing to do with their behavior. Maybe God told him to do it, or a vampire or maybe the ghost of Hitler since he was a fan of Mein Kampf and the communist manifesto I don’t know that seems pretty likely, what do you think?
Also the guy is an admitted marijuana and drug user. Ya’ think maybe that caused a psychotic break? The lefties need to stop using drugs, it destroys the brain, it can even cause hallucinations.
One of his friends even noted that Gifford’s shooter, Loughner, was a liberal. Ah, but the liberal media ignores this because it does not fit their desperate agenda.
How sad that the left even deigns to use this tragedy as a political platform the feed the feeble agenda.
Keep at it, bro’. It’s gonna backfire. It has already.
You keep using that term. i do not think it means what you think it means.
Manchin’s ad was provocative and that oppositional style is very stupid in my opinion. But I’m very doubtful it could be seen as provoking violence when he shoots a piece of paper. I don’t think that’s on par with ‘if we don’t take the country back by votes, we may need to take it by force’ or ‘palling around with terrorists’ or ‘the government health care bill is going to kill you.’