Palin throws kerosene on the fire

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't believe Palin was telling anyone to literally go shoot someone. But I do believe she was stoking an element of the right that revels in trying to project an image that is intimidating and hints at 2nd amendment solutions.

You keep accusing me of repeating 'violent rhetoric or imagery and repeatedly saying - they have consequences'

THAT is what the victim said:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

I put more stock in Giffords' words than Palin's. It was her district office that was vandalized during the health care debate, not Palin's.

There is a very unhealthy monologue by the right blaming government for all our problems. Our founding fathers created a government to address our problems. The real problem is government is being controlled more and more by monied interests that don't have the average citizen's interest at heart.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Here's the thing though, pinhead... Giffords wasn't shot by a right-wing TEA Party radical! She wasn't shot because of "rhetoric" or "tone" from the TEA Party, or anyone associated with the TEA Party. She was shot by a madman... who the fuck knows why a madman does crazy things? You are desperately trying to make some sort of 'logical' connection between the tone and rhetoric of the TEA Party, and what this mentally unstable person did, and there is simply NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER! No evidence to suggest ANY of this shit you are just PRESUMING and moving forward with!

STOP... Just fucking STOP... and think about what you are doing for a moment! It is exactly the sort of mindless vitriolic inflammatory rhetoric you claim to be in objection to, only it is coming from YOU! How can it be, when radical Muslims attack us, we have to completely avoid any and all implications it was perpetrated by a specific group of people, or even a specific sub-group? We're all told that this will incite the Muslims, and we must avoid casting blame on their religion, so as to not provoke violence. Hell, we even have to suspend common fucking sense, in implementing security policies, for the fear of possibly offending a person of Muslim faith... but with this, we can immediately attribute the blame to a specific group, and even specific individuals within that group, without any evidence whatsoever... but that isn't inflammatory at all! It's a complete and absolute CONTRADICTION of principle!

 

[Cancel8]

...She wasn't shot because of "rhetoric" or "tone" from the TEA Party, or anyone associated with the TEA Party. She was shot by a madman... who the fuck knows why a madman does crazy things?

Really?

So you know why the accused allegedly tried to assassinate Rep. Giffords?

No. You also aren't able to rule out any motives.

You say he's a "madman", and state that you don't know "why a madman does crazy things".

So, you cannot say that he wasn't incited by teabagger hate speech, can you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

=Bfgrn;757470]I don't believe Palin was telling anyone to literally go shoot someone. But I do believe she was stoking an element of the right that revels in trying to project an image that is intimidating and hints at 2nd amendment solutions.

you're not being honest, she either is inciting violence or she is not. you said she is not, yet, you're flat out saying she is hinting at using guns as a solution. you're saying that she is encouraging people to use guns instead of voting. but you know you can't come straight out and say it. you told someone not to be the "literal idiot"....well, it doesn't take a implied genius to read what you are really saying.

You keep accusing me of repeating 'violent rhetoric or imagery and repeatedly saying - they have consequences'

THAT is what the victim said:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

I put more stock in Giffords' words than Palin's. It was her district office that was vandalized during the health care debate, not Palin's.

There is a very unhealthy monologue by the right blaming government for all our problems. Our founding fathers created a government to address our problems. The real problem is government is being controlled more and more by monied interests that don't have the average citizen's interest at heart.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

yes, by continually repeating over and over and over, you are saying something. you are saying what she said. you are desperately trying to draw connection between palin's words and the shootings.

why is it you completely ignored my questions about the left's violent rhetoric? do you believe the left is not responsible for their violent rhetoric? what calling to shoot someone, put em up against a wall and shoot him? why weren't you repeating that over and over and saying words have consequences?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really?

So you know why the accused allegedly tried to assassinate Rep. Giffords?

No. You also aren't able to rule out any motives.

You say he's a "madman", and state that you don't know "why a madman does crazy things".

So, you cannot say that he wasn't incited by teabagger hate speech, can you?

Yes, I can pretty safely say it wasn't because of ANY political speech, it was because he is not mentally stable, as evidenced by what we know so far. Giffords, who routinely voted with fiscal Conservative members of Congress, was not someone who posed any political threat to the initiatives of the TEA Party, to the contrary, she was very often an adversary of her own party. Not that this matters, because the man who shot her was mentally unstable! He shot her because he is mentally unstable... he kept a "dream diary" and thought the sky was orange and grass was blue! He was kicked out of school twice, for being perceived as a threat to others... not because he supported the TEA Party! Sorry... there is just absolutely NOTHING to tie this guy, in any way, shape, or form, to the TEA Party or the "tone of rhetoric" from the right OR left... he was just a NUT! Society is FULL of those, as evidenced by YOU!

 

[Cancel8]

Yes, I can pretty safely say it wasn't because of ANY political speech, it was because he is not mentally stable, as evidenced by what we know so far. Giffords, who routinely voted with fiscal Conservative members of Congress, was not someone who posed any political threat to the initiatives of the TEA Party, to the contrary, she was very often an adversary of her own party. Not that this matters, because the man who shot her was mentally unstable! He shot her because he is mentally unstable... he kept a "dream diary" and thought the sky was orange and grass was blue! He was kicked out of school twice, for being perceived as a threat to others... not because he supported the TEA Party! Sorry... there is just absolutely NOTHING to tie this guy, in any way, shape, or form, to the TEA Party or the "tone of rhetoric" from the right OR left... he was just a NUT! Society is FULL of those, as evidenced by YOU!

Is there any evidence to suggest he wasn't influenced by the teabagger mantra of gun intimidation?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

A few "social" type things. I think you're a strong supporter of conservative economics, military and defense spending, not anti-war, not too supportive of government programs that some call entitlements, suspicious of the Middle East except for Israel.

I don't see you as homophobic, pro-DADT or supportive of conservative Christianity in government.

so what is so funny when i say i lean right? you admit i'm not all the way right, i am more middle of the road. i don't expect you to read all my posts, but i am in fact supportive of some so called entitlement programs. they are sometimes necessary. what i don't support is living off them if you are able to get gainful employment.

there are many liberals who are suspicious of the ME, except for israel, so that don't fly.

 

[DamnYankee]

You note how she thinks we want liberals to "take responsibility for it" as if THAT has been the trouble posters have had with her screed? (I really think she is just attempting spin with her faux ignorance)

Hey chris-it's the total fucking high horse hypocrisy!

NO it's not about liberal's taking responsibility for it, though it was obviously not written or directed by conservatives- IT'S about YOU and others like YOU calling out shit like this WHEN a liberal does it with the same speed and dedication you call out shit like this when a conservative does it!

Remember Chris you hate ALL violent rhetoric and imagery. And if you really want cred- then start your rallying cry of denouncement among your own rank and file about what they do- What's that saying "clean up your own backyard before you start bitching about someone elses."

Doesn't it always come down to this? Liberals refuse to accept responsibility so try to pawn it off onto conservatives. And you're right: her refusal to acknowledge that the movie producers are liberal is incredible hypocrisy.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm pretty sure the director was British so his political affiliation is irrelevant.

Perhaps you don't remember how angry the British were over the war, and how they called Tony Blair "bush's poodle" and "Tony Bliar".

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of London to voice their opposition to military action against Iraq.

Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2765041.stm

The irony of your post is incredible. In the first sentence you claim that the director is a Brit so his political affiliation is irrelevant, then in the remainder of the post you tell me how 750,000 Brits agree with your political position.

The fact is that the director is liberal, just like you, and hated Bush to the point where he made a film fantasizing about his assassination. These are simple facts that destroys your position.

 

[Cancel8]

How many leftists have attempted to murder someone for their political beliefs?

 

[Bfgrn]

you're not being honest, she either is inciting violence or she is not. you said she is not, yet, you're flat out saying she is hinting at using guns as a solution. you're saying that she is encouraging people to use guns instead of voting. but you know you can't come straight out and say it. you told someone not to be the "literal idiot"....well, it doesn't take a implied genius to read what you are really saying.




yes, by continually repeating over and over and over, you are saying something. you are saying what she said. you are desperately trying to draw connection between palin's words and the shootings.

why is it you completely ignored my questions about the left's violent rhetoric? do you believe the left is not responsible for their violent rhetoric? what calling to shoot someone, put em up against a wall and shoot him? why weren't you repeating that over and over and saying words have consequences?

You're being naive. By stoking those 2nd amendment solution types, she is energizing people that thrive on that kind of rhetoric and those kind of ideas. But she is playing with nitroglycerin.


As the Republican Party has become more homogeneous, more regional and more reactionary, it has tended to make up for its growing demographic shortcomings by making sure its supporters are more motivated and energized -- and the most effective way to energize them has been to make sure they're constantly enraged.

When the GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare reform from passing, their strategy -- and it almost worked -- was to scare Democratic elected officials. That was the point of telling everyone to shout themselves hoarse at the town halls: to terrify House members. Convince them that their constituents were incensed. If some LaRouchites or other unclassifiable political entities got into the mix, fine -- more voices for the choir of rage. What was formerly a sort of uneasy tolerance of the extremists inched closer to open acceptance. Roger Ailes allows Glenn Beck to run amok spreading classic Bircher paranoia. Matt Drudge links to conspiracy-mad broadcaster Alex Jones. Everyone in the party had to pretend to be cool with idiot extremist Oath Keeper Sharron Angle, because the craziness the right wing whipped up led its primary voters to select her over the safe party hack who would've handily defeated Harry Reid. There are connections -- both direct and spiritual -- between the far-right Patriot movements that flourished in the '90s and some of the more out there elements of the Tea Parties.

http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric

 

[signalmankenneth]

Just another nail in the coffin!

 

[Cancel8]

They aren't crosshairs...they're "surveyor's marks".

 

[christiefan915]

so what is so funny when i say i lean right? you admit i'm not all the way right, i am more middle of the road. i don't expect you to read all my posts, but i am in fact supportive of some so called entitlement programs. they are sometimes necessary. what i don't support is living off them if you are able to get gainful employment.

there are many liberals who are suspicious of the ME, except for israel, so that don't fly.

I see you more as a righty who leans left in a few issues.

 

[christiefan915]

The irony of your post is incredible. In the first sentence you claim that the director is a Brit so his political affiliation is irrelevant, then in the remainder of the post you tell me how 750,000 Brits agree with your political position.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The Brits who post here have stated over and over that our definition of liberal and conservative as applicable to government isn't the same as theirs. Also, you imply that just because 750,000 Brits protested the war, they must be liberal. Did it cross your mind that they protested their leader Blair sending British young men off to fight a war that didn't even involve their country? Your fallacy is in thinking that conservatives can't be against war when that's not the case, especially if it involves their family members who might get killed.

The fact is that the director is liberal, just like you, and hated Bush to the point where he made a film fantasizing about his assassination. These are simple facts that destroys your position.

If you can prove Gabriel Range is liberal by citing a reliable article and not just flapping your gums, I'll take it into consideration. I've already searched him on a number of pages and nowhere is there mention of his political affiliation.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're being naive. By stoking those 2nd amendment solution types, she is energizing people that thrive on that kind of rhetoric and those kind of ideas. But she is playing with nitroglycerin.


As the Republican Party has become more homogeneous, more regional and more reactionary, it has tended to make up for its growing demographic shortcomings by making sure its supporters are more motivated and energized -- and the most effective way to energize them has been to make sure they're constantly enraged.

When the GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare reform from passing, their strategy -- and it almost worked -- was to scare Democratic elected officials. That was the point of telling everyone to shout themselves hoarse at the town halls: to terrify House members. Convince them that their constituents were incensed. If some LaRouchites or other unclassifiable political entities got into the mix, fine -- more voices for the choir of rage. What was formerly a sort of uneasy tolerance of the extremists inched closer to open acceptance. Roger Ailes allows Glenn Beck to run amok spreading classic Bircher paranoia. Matt Drudge links to conspiracy-mad broadcaster Alex Jones. Everyone in the party had to pretend to be cool with idiot extremist Oath Keeper Sharron Angle, because the craziness the right wing whipped up led its primary voters to select her over the safe party hack who would've handily defeated Harry Reid. There are connections -- both direct and spiritual -- between the far-right Patriot movements that flourished in the '90s and some of the more out there elements of the Tea Parties.

http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric

3 times now and you avoid talking about dems:

why is it you completely ignored my questions about the left's violent rhetoric? do you believe the left is not responsible for their violent rhetoric? what calling to shoot someone, put em up against a wall and shoot him? why weren't you repeating that over and over and saying words have consequences?

i'll take that as you think the dems are not responsible for their rhetoric and only hold the pubs responsible.

thats a hack

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Is there any evidence to suggest he wasn't influenced by the teabagger mantra of gun intimidation?

Is there any evidence he wasn't motivated by red white and blue balloons? Maybe we should be lobbying Congress to ban them? Let's just stop being STUPID here, okay? It's not very becoming at all.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Is there any evidence he wasn't motivated by red white and blue balloons? Maybe we should be lobbying Congress to ban them? Let's just stop being STUPID here, okay? It's not very becoming at all.

is there any evidence he wasn't influence by the violent rhetoric of the left?


"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n#ixzz1AsbZNbAa

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

is there any evidence he wasn't influence by the violent rhetoric of the left?


"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n#ixzz1AsbZNbAa

Yeah, or maybe it was Obama's remarks about bringing a gun to the fight? Or maybe it was the Liberal movie depicting the assassination of Bush? Or maybe it was violent video games? Or..... and this is a real stretch here... maybe, just MAYYYbe... the guy was certifiably nuts, and did this because he is crazy, and there is no 'rationalization' for his actions?

 

[Canceled1]

You're comparing apples to oranges. The Brits who post here have stated over and over that our definition of liberal and conservative as applicable to government isn't the same as theirs. Also, you imply that just because 750,000 Brits protested the war, they must be liberal. Did it cross your mind that they protested their leader Blair sending British young men off to fight a war that didn't even involve their country? Your fallacy is in thinking that conservatives can't be against war when that's not the case, especially if it involves their family members who might get killed.



If you can prove Gabriel Range is liberal by citing a reliable article and not just flapping your gums, I'll take it into consideration. I've already searched him on a number of pages and nowhere is there mention of his political affiliation.

You need to get your ass off this message board, grab your husband and go have some laughs. Christ! You must have permanent dead-cheeks by now you've been here non-stop the last several days!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lBNXn_IIIo&feature=fvw"]YouTube - What Old People Do For Fun[/ame]

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yeah, or maybe it was Obama's remarks about bringing a gun to the fight? Or maybe it was the Liberal movie depicting the assassination of Bush? Or maybe it was violent video games? Or..... and this is a real stretch here... maybe, just MAYYYbe... the guy was certifiably nuts, and did this because he is crazy, and there is no 'rationalization' for his actions?

thats what you get for trying to debate mojo...no where