Reply With Quote
He's a phony.
It's been done.
He's a phony.
Another non connection is found!
CBSForty-five percent of Americans believe that Jared Loughner's political views were "probably" a factor in the shootings in Tucson Saturday, a new CBS News poll shows. One in three say they probably were not a factor, while 22 percent say they do not know.
Loughner has not cooperated with investigators in the wake of the shooting, and evidence suggests he held muddled political views far outside the mainstream. Many partisans have nonetheless tried to link the alleged shooter to the right or left.
The poll also shows that while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified -- the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents.
Palin, Rush, BECKKK, et al, may not have put the gun in the guy's hand but they sure supplied the bullets!
How about that "shrine"
....but, but...he had a shrine!
Won't somebody think of the orange slices?
...like being crazy makes him any less of a wing-nut....or having wing-nut tendencies...
Polls are not evidence of motive, you moron.
Nobody can be this stupid.
You are...
You betcha!
nbadan - I'm not sure where you got that polling information because I heard something quite different:
CBS News is out with a new poll today that finds Americans strongly rejecting the notion that the political climate played a role in Saturday's attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents say that the nation's "harsh political tone" didn't have anything to do with the shooting rampage, compared with 32 percent who say it did play a role. Not surprisingly, Republicans are more unified in denying any linkage (a 69 to 19 percent margin), but even a plurality of Democrats -- 49 percent -- agree that there was no connection. Among independents, the spread is 56 to 33.
This is somewhat heartening, given that so many commentators on the left -- including, I must say, some of my colleagues here -- have since Saturday been playing up the extreme rhetoric that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party favorites have spouted these past few years, claiming that it all somehow created a climate conducive to Jared Loughner's shooting rampage.
As I wrote on Sunday night, I find this to be a very slippery argument. We know that no connection between Loughner and Tea Party politics has been established, and what we have learned about him strongly suggests that he lacked a recognizable political iden y. He looks to be a deranged young man and it's unclear if he was even aware of the political debate/conversation that the rest of us follow every day. There's just no evidence of any connection between Loughner and Palin, the Tea Party and conservative movement.
That's a ing weak shrine. If you are going to go ahead and make a shrine, you gotta MAKE A SHRINE. I dare say that is not even a shrine. He put a skull and some peaches in his mom's flower pots.
lol bringing up a video that provides no evidence of Loughner's motive as proof of Loughner's motive.
Good stats. Much better to take a poll from the public at large, that way they can't have their views reflect that of what's been reported.
Those teachers and students don't have the numbers to create a solid poll......
I provided a direct link to CBS with my info....
I've asked you a million times, Nbadan.
Where is the evidence that Palin, Limbaugh, Beck or the Tea Party directly influenced Loughner's actions?
You can't see it with your wing-nut colored glasses on......see the forest for the trees man!
That's all you got? Misquoting me? Seriously?
Run along boy...
I posted this somewhere else, but this is exactly how every conversation I have had with people blaming Palin has turned out.
Apologize for what?Sarah Palin should apologize.
Is there any evidence that connects the shootings to Sarah Palin?The shootings that happened in Arizona.
Is there anything to show that Loughner was influenced by this imagery?Palin's camp posted imagery of a cross hair that targeted Gabriel Giffords.
No you haven't. You still haven't made a connection between the shooter's motive and Palin.Why are you asking so many questions? I already answered that.
Repeat ad infinitum.You're just a troll/crazy.
Rationalize the irrational.
ty, , ............
Okay, let's recap since this has gone so far afield that even the bat crazies, like Nbadan, are lost in their narrative...
First, and most important, there is absolutely no evidence to show Loughner was motivated by inflammatory, vitriolic, partisan, political rhetoric. None. Zilch. Zero.
What we do know is that Arizona has a law, in place, by which Loughner could have been subjected to psychiatric evaluation long before he snapped. In fact, the Sheriff that continues to rail against the Right, has had several opportunities to intervene since he said, himself, he was aware of Loughner and that he had made death threats in the past.
So, I say the blame starts with Loughner, moves through the many people who contacted him over the last few years and failed to use the tools their legislature provided to deal with the mentally ill, on to the law enforcement agency that knew he was dangerous and failed to act.
Now, about that SarahPAC ad that seems to be the focus of everyone's derision and scorn.
Who in here thinks Sarah Palin personally sat down and designed that ad? And if, as you say, she is so fond of martial imagery, where are the references to "target" or "bullseye" or "lock and load" or any other violent euphemism? There not there.
In fact, in that context and on that image, surveyor marks make more sense. Districts are geography. The marks are placed on geographic locations, not people.
Chances are a marketing intern or aide came up with bright idea on their own. Even in the 2010 mid-term elections, there are similar examples of such imagery from the other side of the political spectrum.
The Democratic Leadership Committee put out this "Targeting Strategy" graphic:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued this one (each bulls eye represents a Republican Congressman):
And, in the realm of what might have motivated someone to "target" Congresswoman Giffords, specifically? I think The DailyKos takes the blue ribbon on that one...
Two days before she was shot, Some unbalanced frequent contributor to DailyKos posted this:
And Moulitas himself, back in 2008, "targeted" and put a "bullseye" on Giffords, along with other Democrats because they didn't tow the party line the way he thought they should.
Particularly since Kos's vitriol is more contemporaneous to Loughner's first contact with Giffords (2007), when his friends became aware he didn't like her very much, wouldn't it make more sense to put the blame there and be excoriating him? Oh wait, he's a friendly.
The Democrats have failed again. Yes, again. From JFK to Loughner, Democrats first assertion, whenever something like this occurs, is that right-wing extremism and vitrolic rhetoric caused it. Not only has that never been the case, more times than not it's turned out to be either an insane person or left-wing idiot.
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-11-2011 at 09:15 PM.
So, Nbadan, have you found anything yet that proves violent rhetoric motivated Loughner to shoot several people, or are you content with making baseless accusations and calling those who want evidence trolls?
He's out back with his skull.
This application of a poll is unquestionably the stupidest post you've ever made. Its so absurd its actually a thing of wonder. Congrats.
From Dangerous Dan's "poll"
Just what the were Loughner's "Political Views?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
