Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Sinnthia
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?

There you go again, making up the facts to suit your argument.

Who is asking anyone to be 'hunted and killed'?

Originally posted by loam
There you go again, making up the facts to suit your argument.

Who is asking anyone to be 'hunted and killed'?

I guess you might want to explain what "2nd ammendment remedies" means then?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
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?

WHO makes the decision on what to say and how to say it? You? Me? The government? This is nothing more than a HUGE slam on the 1st ammendment. Are people so darned weak and pathetic now that we have to tip-toe around every word and saying?

C'mon!

Originally posted by beezzer
WHO makes the decision on what to say and how to say it? You? Me? The government?

The person saying it.

This is nothing more than a HUGE slam on the 1st ammendment. Are people so darned weak and pathetic now that we have to tip-toe around every word and saying?

C'mon!

I do not see anyone calling for laws about speech. I see people asking adults to try and use fewer gun references in politics. I do not see what is wrong with that. I might ask people not to discuss their sex life at a children's birthday party. That does not equate to asking for laws enforcing it. Palin and Angle just need to maybe talk about politics in the form of politics and maybe not in the form of hunting. If you think that is too much to ask of someone, then your opinion is duly noted.

reply to post by Sinnthia


What you are suggesting?

It's called censorship.

Originally posted by beezzer
WHO makes the decision on what to say and how to say it? You? Me? The government? This is nothing more than a HUGE slam on the 1st ammendment. Are people so darned weak and pathetic now that we have to tip-toe around every word and saying?

I don't see it as a slam to the 1st Amendment in the very least. You are entitled to say whatever you wish. However, just as with actions, one must be held accountable for their words. This is about irresponsible word choice and rhetoric. I believe that if one speaks or acts irresponsibly, then there should be consequences to pay. Those consequences may not come in the form of law or stripping of one's rights; rather, the consequences may come in the form of public shunning.

reply to post by loam

the point made in this thread is ridiculous.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? I think it's a crime in and of itself to provide the killer cover by suggesting "Sarah Palin made him do it."

I don't think it's a cover - the guy was nuts, and responded predictably to the inflammatory incitement of Palin's and Kelly's ideology, campaigns and "programming."

Do you not think Palin and Kelly should be held responsible and accountable for the totally predictable results of their actions? ...In this context, the killer was a 'terrorist' while Palin and Kelly promoted and fronted for a 'terrorist conspiracy.'

...We are all constantly bombarded by MSM profiles of suicide bombers, the details of their ideologies AND the effects of their "programming." Every effort is made to find the guilty 'leaders,' destroy the root ideology, and stop the "programming."

NO ONE says the suicide bombers' "teachers" and "leaders" should not be held responsible and accountable. We ALL know that some people are "susceptible" to being manipulated in this way. As I recall, the Department of Homeland Security was established for exactly this reason - to prevent such occurrences on home soil.

Taken together, Palin's poster and Kelly's ad can be seen as a conspiracy that predictably resulted in another individual's equally predictable action:

Palin's "target" poster:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c87574164caa.jpg[/atsimg]


Kelly's Ad:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/507bf5d6b9f3.jpg[/atsimg]


Got that?

Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office

Shoot a fully automatic M16

A terrorist conspiracy if I've ever seen one.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What you are suggesting?

It's called censorship.

No one is suggesting censorship.

But don't start up the crybaby whining when hateful and violent rhetoric from the likes of Rush, Bork, Beck, Sean, Coulter Savage, Levin, Medved, Mancow, Hal Turner, ORilley and Laura Ingram and yes Sarah Palin results in some right wing conservative nut case, takes their hateful message to heart and kills people.

It's only a matter of time.

reply to post by Aggie Man


So now YOU get to determine what is responsible and what isn't?
Same tune, just the dance is a little different.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What you are suggesting?

It's called censorship.

You are going to have to show me a quote or something because the only thing I am calling for is self control. Why is that such a foreign concept? I am asking that adults be careful with what they say. I am asking they CHOOSE their words more carefully. I am not asking for anyone to be censored. Loom would call what you are doing is playing loose with the facts but since it is me, he is just giving you stars instead.

Show me where I called for censorship.
I do not understand why I cannot suggest that a politician saying people should be killed is not exactly a good idea. It just is not a good idea.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What you are suggesting?

It's called censorship.

No one is suggesting censorship.

But don't start up the crybaby whining when hateful and violent rhetoric from the likes of Rush, Bork, Beck, Sean, Coulter Savage, Levin, Medved, Mancow, Hal Turner, ORilley and Laura Ingram and yes Sarah Palin results in some right wing conservative nut case, takes their hateful message to heart and kills people.

It's only a matter of time.

I won't. Because there is still an "off" switch on the tv and radio. The 1st Ammendment guarantees the right to say what you want. It doesn't force anyone to listen.
Personal responsibility.
I haven't blamed Obama, Olbermann, Pelosi, Reid, Schultz, MSNBC, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, et al for this clowns actions. I have said all along that HE was to blame.

You or he can blame anyone you want. Heck, blame the greys, blame the man on the moon, but when it comes down to accountability, the only person to blame is the one that pulled the trigger.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

So now YOU get to determine what is responsible and what isn't?
Same tune, just the dance is a little different.

Yes, I get to determine for myself, just as the public in general does. If I believe someone said or did something irresponsible, then I am entitled to call them on it. Just as you are entitled to defend them. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to choose ones words wisely, especially when you have a team of writers, editors and attorneys.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What you are suggesting?

It's called censorship.

You are going to have to show me a quote or something because the only thing I am calling for is self control. Why is that such a foreign concept? I am asking that adults be careful with what they say. I am asking they CHOOSE their words more carefully. I am not asking for anyone to be censored. Loom would call what you are doing is playing loose with the facts but since it is me, he is just giving you stars instead.

Show me where I called for censorship.
I do not understand why I cannot suggest that a politician saying people should be killed is not exactly a good idea. It just is not a good idea.

So who gets to determine what is self control? If I said something you object to, then you could accuse me of not having "self control".
Be careful with what they say? What gives you or anyone else the right to make that determnination?
You're asking that they CHOOSE their words more carefully? What words should they CHOOSE? Would you supply a list?

If you don't like what someone is saying. . . . "STOP LISTENING!!!!!"

reply to post by soficrow


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.

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

Do we really want to go down this path?

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.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

So now YOU get to determine what is responsible and what isn't?
Same tune, just the dance is a little different.

Yes, I get to determine for myself, just as the public in general does. If I believe someone said or did something irresponsible, then I am entitled to call them on it. Just as you are entitled to defend them. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to choose ones words wisely, especially when you have a team of writers, editors and attorneys.

You do have the freedom to determine for yourself.
But it stops there.
You have no right to make that determination for others.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

So now YOU get to determine what is responsible and what isn't?
Same tune, just the dance is a little different.

Yes, I get to determine for myself, just as the public in general does. If I believe someone said or did something irresponsible, then I am entitled to call them on it. Just as you are entitled to defend them. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to choose ones words wisely, especially when you have a team of writers, editors and attorneys.

You do have the freedom to determine for yourself.
But it stops there.
You have no right to make that determination for others.

I never said that I had the right to determine for others. So, what's your beef with me?

reply to post by Aggie Man


I have no beef. Please forgive if you took it that way. I interpreted it as you making a determination of what "others" should or should not say.
I do get heated when I feel that any right or liberty is under attack. Nothing personal. This is all about debate and the free-flowing transfer of ideas.

reply to post by loam


Thanks loam. Gotcha.

Will feed the birds, walk the dogs, ruminate - rethink propensity to react, shoot from the hip.

reply to post by loam


Where not suggesting laws against speech or at least I wouldn’t, but these hypocrites are the main people always accusing moderate Muslims of not criticizing their own terrorists in their religion; but these right–wing conservatives who don’t indulge in this terroristic-type language have rarely taken their own lunatics in their midst to task and castigated them when they do indulge in this dangerous rhetoric.

We should use criticism and pressure on the Palin types when they indulge in dangerous language.

People have warned her and others on numerous occasions now she understands.

The killers favorite book was the "Communist Manifesto". Id say his rage was caused by reading that kind of literature, not by Sarah Palin.