'He Did Not Watch TV, Disliked the News, and Didn't Listen to Political Radio.'

Link to follow...

If true, I doubt it will still change the minds of the anti-Palin crowd. They're loving the use of the deaths of these poor people for political gain.

reply to post by loam


It doesn't matter at this point...public opinion has made up it's mind.

Doesn't matter if he was a follower of Palin or not, like BH said in another thread...it was very easy for all of us to immediately think it had a political reason behind it. And if anyone is trying to deny that the right has ramped up hateful and violent rhetoric...then you are lying to yourself...or you agree with their sentiment.

Palin will suffer for one reason....ALL she has is hateful and violent rhetoric. She can't debate the issues...she doesn't have any good ideas...she never has and never will be able to stand on her own on a issues debate. All she has is appealing to peoples emotions...creating fear that the "others" are "taking over America" and that they have to "reload" to "take America back".

That isn't going to work anymore for her...she will try...believe me she will try. But there will be backlash all over the place...media...public...everywhere. Doesn't matter if her previous comments had any bearing on this event at all...the time for violent hateful rhetoric has ended. She will be forced to try to speak about positives of what she can do...and she will fail at that point. There is a reason she hasn't tried that tactic before...because she knows and all her advisors know that she has nothing to offer. Appeal to emotion...stir up hate for the "other" side...that is all she has...and it will not work any longer for anyone outside of her cult following.

Here's a link. Source There's a video there.

Two years ago:

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

The kid talks about Zeitgeist.

Are people actually BLAMING Palin?

reply to post by loam


It doesn't matter. It still shines a spotlight. As I posted in another thread just a second ago, Gifford spoke out against exactly what everyone is calling out now months ago. Which obviously means she felt endangered. You may feel bad for Palin (I don't because she's an idiot) but do you really support the message she was putting out there?

She didn't say this (below video) for no reason. Can you say that the previous attacks on her office (that people that worked for her admitted seriously worried them) wasn't because of Palin's violent message. I would bet it undoubtedly was.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If people are blaming her they are wrong. Doesn't mean what she is/was in fact doing was right.
Actually the fact she removed her little target page is pretty much an admission that it wasn't appropriate.
Tell me this. If you paint a target on a woman, does it only become inappropriate if that woman is shot?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You may feel bad for Palin (I don't because she's an idiot) but do you really support the message she was putting out there?

Supporting a right of political speech is not the same as supporting the content of political speech. BIG difference.

Moreover, it's apparent to me that those bloviating the most about the negative and violent rhetoric are carefully picking and choosing their examples to the exclusion of other examples that cut against the political group they happen to support.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
If people are blaming her they are wrong. Doesn't mean what she is/was in fact doing was right.
Actually the fact she removed her little target page is pretty much an admission that it wasn't appropriate.

After the fact, certainly. Before the fact, not so much.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Tell me this. If you paint a target on a woman, does it only become inappropriate if that woman is shot?

What is the point of the question? Palin didn't paint a target on a woman. She used cross-hair graphics on a map of congressional races she wanted her candidates to win.

Not exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If people are blaming her they are wrong.

I agree. She is not responsible for this shooting. She is responsible for her part in creating an atmosphere of hatred and violence in politics.

Doesn't mean what she is/was in fact doing was right. Actually the fact she removed her little target page is pretty much an admission that it wasn't appropriate.

Absolutely agree.

Tell me this. If you paint a target on a woman, does it only become inappropriate if that woman is shot?

Based on results, yes. To me? No. It was inappropriate for her to do, especially with all her gun talk that went along with it. Several people (right and left) are guilty of ramping up the rhetoric, but Palin is the most popular and visible and used more gun metaphors than anyone else. That's why SHE is the focus of the violent atmosphere. She did it the most.

I think our opinions matter to a point, only for purpose of mass majority reasoning and that of taking focus off perhaps the real issues at hand: a much larger reality. It's strange that each country is different to dramatic levels though when visiting them...cultures are different, foods, languages, though people are people and it doesn't matter where one is born. They will be either good or not. I do think where we are born does affect us though the core of each person is who they are regardless of where they are born. We are born with personality, and it grows with our experiences. If we created more positive experiences maybe we'd have more positive people on the planet. I don't know, just a thought.

reply to post by loam


I disagree. If someone was painting targets on you, spouting "don't retreat, reload," and "take aim." And you have people smashing up your office because a big political group is telling these people we need to take them out and making these followers think that you are their personal enemy and oppressor. You would feel differently and you would be concerned as she clearly was. At the time she made her statements they were pure because no action had been taken. They were honest and legitimate concerns.

What is the point of the question? Palin didn't paint a target on a woman. She used cross-hair graphics on a map of congressional races she wanted her candidates to win. Not exactly the same thing.

Oh, well cross hairs are worse then. You can throw rotten tomatoes at a target, but rotten tomatoes generally don't come with cross hairs.

reply to post by loam


Yeah she had the right to say it (that's why she isn't in jail). However when you speak to that many strangers, millions of people, you are responsible for the effect your words have as the only reason you are speaking is to have an effect.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Help me understand why she is the poster child for unacceptable political rhetoric and not others? She wasn't the only one. In fact, there are others who have said and done far worse in terms of inflammatory speech-- ON BOTH SIDES.

For people who oppose such political rhetoric, why isn't it all routinely condemned?

Originally posted by loam
Help me understand why she is the poster child for unacceptable political rhetoric and not others?

Perfect phrase! She is the poster child.

A poster child represents something in many people. The fact that she's the poster child doesn't mean that she's the only one. She's just the loudest, most visible, and most extreme of our current political figures pushing her brand of campaigning.

For people who oppose such political rhetoric, why isn't it all routinely condemned?

I have condemned it all along.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Gabrielle Giffords goes on MSNBC and tells palin there will be consequences over her target graphic.

Gabrielle Giffords and a number of others are shot by "crazed" gunman.

Everyone begins railing against rhetoric and palin in what is an effective move to further snip away at the definition of free speech.




That's quite a coincidence.

Sorry Dupnik, Sorry Libs: Only 28% Believe Shootings Were Result of Political Anger
Rasmussen Poll

Americans have closely followed news stories about the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona on Saturday, and most don’t feel politics was the cause of it. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of Adults say the shooting in Arizona was the result of political anger in the country. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say instead that it was a random act of violence by an unstable person. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties view the shooting as a random act of violence. Even Democrats by a 48% to 37% margin agree, although leading members of their party have attributed the shootings to a climate of anger they say has been generated by opponents of President Obama.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by loam

 

It doesn't matter at this point...public opinion has made up it's mind.

Doesn't matter if he was a follower of Palin or not, like BH said in another thread...it was very easy for all of us to immediately think it had a political reason behind it. And if anyone is trying to deny that the right has ramped up hateful and violent rhetoric...then you are lying to yourself...or you agree with their sentiment.

Palin will suffer for one reason....ALL she has is hateful and violent rhetoric. She can't debate the issues...she doesn't have any good ideas...she never has and never will be able to stand on her own on a issues debate. All she has is appealing to peoples emotions...creating fear that the "others" are "taking over America" and that they have to "reload" to "take America back".

That isn't going to work anymore for her...she will try...believe me she will try. But there will be backlash all over the place...media...public...everywhere. Doesn't matter if her previous comments had any bearing on this event at all...the time for violent hateful rhetoric has ended. She will be forced to try to speak about positives of what she can do...and she will fail at that point. There is a reason she hasn't tried that tactic before...because she knows and all her advisors know that she has nothing to offer. Appeal to emotion...stir up hate for the "other" side...that is all she has...and it will not work any longer for anyone outside of her cult following.