Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot


That is according to right-wing known liars

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


You’re the one who started to call people names, it’s typical of the conservative reactionary hatred some types breath.

Believe me you don’t want to get me started because I don’t turn the other cheek tough guy!
Though I never start abuse but I will finish it!
So be careful what you say here, for I will retaliate in kind.

Read this link and see some of your brothers in arms, you are the kind to take joy in this carnage

www.csgv.org...

Inforeal, I admit I don't like any analogies that unnecessarily use violent images. Perhaps there can be kind of a subliminal message involved.

But we don't really know if this psycho killer had even read any of that junk on Palin's site.

I hadn't, until all this happened. So, how can we hold her even partially responsible, when we don't know if he had even seen it? It was irresponsible, immature, and in bad taste, I agree. But.....is there any evidence that he'd seen it?

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Didn’t I post in the first line that this depraved killer didn’t kill for Palin causes?
“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.”

I didn’t say, or imply such a thing. All I said was that she and those like her who uses symbols of violence like she did may have assisted in an atmosphere that caused the violence.

In that sense she is guilty, not literally in a legal or moral sense but she herself now understands that what she did is wrong since she took down the site herself.

reply to post by inforeal

There was NO violent rhetoric that has not been said by politicians of all stripes, CEO's or other business managers, sports managers or other athletes, or anybody else that is in some form of competition.
This whole premise is false, and stupid I might add.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by inforeal

 

There was NO violent rhetoric that has not been said by politicians of all stripes, CEO's or other business managers, sports managers or other athletes, or anybody else that is in some form of competition.
This whole premise is false, and stupid I might add.

I am still having trouble finding an example of anyone suggesting armed revolution the way Sharon Angle did. She explicitly spoke of removing democratically elected people from office by the use of a gun. No metaphor. No map to whine about. She said what she said. You have Glenn Beck talking about killing people on his show all the time. Poisoning Pelosi, murdering Michael Moore. Two years we have been listening to right wingers go on and on about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots. Politicians and business people may use colorful language but the right has really taken the cake over the last couple of years. I am not saying these thiungs do not happen on the left but to pretend the right has not been pushing more violent rhetoric is insane. You were all so proud of your rattlesnakes before last weekend. Now it is all just metaphors and "we didnt mean anything by it." Cowards.

reply to post by Sinnthia

So, you think what exactly?
Do you think that it is never okay to express the fact that you believe revolution may be necessary?
Tell me, I am curious? Do you think that Loughner is a revolutionary, encouraged by the likes of Beck?
If so, why?
While you are at it, tell me what the limits of free speech should be, and exactly WHEN a group of people can begin to talk of revolution.
Don't be afraid.

AOL News contributor Michael Arceneaux added:

It could very well be coincidental that Giffords just happened to be one of the 20 House Democrats Sarah Palin placed on her "target list." But by using crosshair images to show each targeted politician's district and telling her supporters via Twitter, "Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!," she unnecessarily employed imagery and expressions that indirectly glorified violence.

Expressed very well indeed. However I suggest Palin's imagery and expessions violence.


.

This young man, Jared Loughner, planned to slaughter then carried out his plans without caring or remorse. He may have been DIRECTLY INFLUENCED by Palin's violent imagery. His lawyer will probably plead unstable mind and try to make it easier for murderer.

reply to post by Elderlight

You DO know what DailyKos is, right? You DO know that they had a similar BULLSEYE target on Giffords, don't you?
She is a conservative, so she is an "enemy" of the left, and she is a Democrat, an "enemy" of the so-called right.
Get a grip people, it is politics, blood sport. Stop blaming the Cowboys when a Redskin is carted off of the field. If you don't like it, help change it, but don't pretend one side is better than the other in the game of politics.

Originally posted by Stewie
but don't pretend one side is better than the other in the game of politics.

But one side is better than the other in the game of politics! They are called moderates.

reply to post by whaaa

Well, when you have some time, you can elaborate on the beliefs of a "moderate". How does the moderate feel about the federal reserve? Or gun rights? Or the powers of the executive branch? Or the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan?

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

So, you think what exactly?
Do you think that it is never okay to express the fact that you believe revolution may be necessary?

Are you paying attention? A politician suggesting her side revolt against a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader is not revolution. That is sore losing. Do you know what Democratically elected means? That means people voted for someone. To suggest the minority unhappy with the turnout use guns to revolt is not revolution against tryanny but against fellow Americans who vote differently. No, I never think that is a valid suggestion. NEVER.

Tell me, I am curious? Do you think that Loughner is a revolutionary, encouraged by the likes of Beck?
If so, why?

No.

While you are at it, tell me what the limits of free speech should be, and exactly WHEN a group of people can begin to talk of revolution.

When did I say there should be limits imposed?

Don't be afraid.

Trust me, the straw men you are trying to erect scare me little. Perhaps you can address what I have actually said instead of trying to attribute to me things I never said.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by whaaa

 

Well, when you have some time, you can elaborate on the beliefs of a "moderate". How does the moderate feel about the federal reserve? Or gun rights? Or the powers of the executive branch? Or the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan?

I'm a vet, registered Republican and NRA member. Other than that, I don't need to justify or explain anything to you.

Because in my opinion you are nothing more than a troll.

reply to post by Sinnthia

Oh, so now, it is all about Sharon Angle, and the rest of your post means nothing, right? Coward?
You say the right-wingers like Beck (who I abhor by the way but that is not the point) are spewing MORE hate than Michael Moore or Pelosi, but you bring nothing but your opinion that there is any HATE at all. You sound like an NPR news brief.

reply to post by whaaa

So you can't tell me what a moderate believes?
But, somehow they are the chosen ones in politics.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Oh, so now, it is all about Sharon Angle, and the rest of your post means nothing, right?

All about??? Do you have something to say or just time to kill?

Coward?

Cowards - plural. Is that supposed to be a question?

You say the right-wingers like Beck (who I abhor by the way but that is not the point) are spewing MORE hate than Michael Moore or Pelosi,

You cannot read can you? That is not even close to what I said. WOW!

but you bring nothing but your opinion that there is any HATE at all. You sound like an NPR news brief.

LMAO. Actually, the part you seemed to not be able to read explains my reasons for having a problem with them but I do not recall expressing any hate at all. Troll elsewhere.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Elderlight

 

You DO know what DailyKos is, right? You DO know that they had a similar BULLSEYE target on Giffords, don't you?
She is a conservative, so she is an "enemy" of the left, and she is a Democrat, an "enemy" of the so-called right.
Get a grip people, it is politics, blood sport. Stop blaming the Cowboys when a Redskin is carted off of the field. If you don't like it, help change it, but don't pretend one side is better than the other in the game of politics.

If you re-read my post you will note that the remark is made by AOL News contributor Michael Arceneaux. I made 2 brief comments beneath it. Words such as "suggest" and " may " do not indicate taking sides.

It is pure insanity to me.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Stewie
but don't pretend one side is better than the other in the game of politics.

But one side is better than the other in the game of politics! They are called moderates.

Doesn't that depend on what moderates do?

I'm not casting aspersion on you with this, so bear with me here:

1. if the Republican Right and the Democrat Left's ideologies are too hardcore, destructive, and divisive, how is meeting in a place between two destructive forces a good thing?

2. I posit that the only real moderates are members like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who, despite my misgivings to Mr. Kucinich for being a lefty, are both obviously taking their oaths seriously.

Just a few points I wanted to throw out there.

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora



Doesn't that depend on what moderates do?

I'm not casting aspersion on you with this, so bear with me here:


2. I posit that the only real moderates are members like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who, despite my misgivings to Mr. Kucinich for being a lefty, are both obviously taking their oaths seriously.

If you would read the thread, you would know from my previous post how I feel about this tragedy.

I think your ideology is clear by calling Mr. Kucinich a "lefty"....No matter what I say I'm afraid that your ideology with get in the way of your common sense and Ive had enough aspersions cast on me for one day, so I'll just leave it at that. I get the feeling that you are trolling just like stewie and I don't need it!

if any citizen went around town posting flyers with their competitions addresses in GUNSIGHTS and even playful rhetoric implying RELOADING AND TAKING DOWN of such competitors.. criminal complaints could easily be filed and maybe won in court..

if some nutcase went out and shot one of these indiduals and the HITLIST was found in their pocket.. the person posting the flyers would be deep in a whole different layer of #...

if in interogation this guy or any other witness implies that it was seeing palins hit list was what motivated him to finally go after a congresswoman, he had been angry at for years.. PALIN COULD BE CRIMINALY CHARGED.. but of course she will have lawyers who will beat that down.