Reply With Quote
I hope someone revokes your right to start threads
A liberal -- one who calls conservatives "wingnuts," no less -- writes an essay calling RFK, Jr. on the carpet over the faux narrative that right-wing rhetoric causes violence.
Gutsy. I wonder if they'll revoke his card...or, as is the norm, start threatening him with violence.
Lee Harvey Oswald has left the building
The same guy in an earlier post:If you want to make the case that violent political rhetoric in general begets real violence, then make that case. Don’t fudge the data and don’t cherry pick your facts. Don’t talk ominously about right-wing vitriol and look meaningfully over at Dallas 1963, or at Tuscon 2011. Unless, of course, you want to argue that right-wing rhetoric is dangerous because it drives leftists and schizophrenics to murder, but somehow I don’t think that’s the goal.
It's like spotting a snow leopard in the wild; a reasonable liberal.It’s like, come on, dudes, try this theory with my mom. My mom, who has lived through the past blood-soaked half-century of American history, from the JFK assassination to this moment. Wave your Palin map in front of her and explain that the lady who showed up from Alaska two years ago made this happen with her scary map icons.
It’s just such a ing insult to everyone’s intelligence.
I hope someone revokes your right to start threads
Oh, and Kori doesn't owe me anything; let her know you want me banned. It's her call.
i guess palins whining isn't enough for yoni.
saw her interview on hannity yesterday. i must admit........she's a whiney, self-centered, palin in the ass.
Fantasy?
More fantasizing?
No, I think it was GGA fantasizing.
Oh, and another liberal steps up to defend Palin:
Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics
The only people keeping this issue alive is conservatives (yoni). No one feels sorry for you guys..
Perhaps, but you encouraged it. That was optional.
I agree that Palin definitely didn't cause the shooting. It's somewhat asinine to think that. I also think that there's a possibility that violent political rhetoric may have some impact on the public conscience. Palin probably recognized that, which might be why she took down the map, as some people might have (ahem) mistakenly identified the symbols as crosshair targets.
Ed Koch is not a conservative and he's keeping it alive.
No one is asking for sympathy...just pointing out an injustice and directing the scorn in the proper direction.
Just directed him to the appropriate person to make his wish come true.
I think she discusses why she took down the map, maybe you should watch her video. I believe she thought it was the right thing to do considering the left was coming unhinged over the issue and she and her family were receiving an increasing number of death threats every day the media continued to harp on the Palin and her SarahPAC ad caused the massacre in Tucson.
You're right, it is somewhat asinine to think that but, think it they did. Some haven't let go yet...
Now, they just wish Sarah Palin and her defenders would shut up because it demonstrates just what depraved opportunists the left and their media dogs were for almost a week.
It must be embarrassing.
I find it embarassing that you still haven't acknowledged the fact that Giffords' denounced Palin's ad and its effect on the political climate in Arizona. The depraved opportunists and media dogs did not make the hypothesis up, the victim did. Your refusal to acknowledge the significance of that is quite telling.
And I find it odd that you are conflating the rapidly diminishing conventional wisdom that somehow Palin/Tea Party/evil conservative du jour influenced the shooter, with Gifford's comments on the political climate.
As it turns out, they are quite separate in Loughler's case.
Did Giffords denounce the Democrat ads that used the same tactic and type of graphics?
Palin was actively trying to turn Giffords' seat. I'm certain that didn't make Giffords happy. That doesn't mean the SarahPAC contributed to any violence -- and, in fact, we now know it didn't.
Now you're trying to get me to criticize Ms. Giffords for being wrong. Well, if you're contending Congresswoman Giffords claimed the SarahPAC ad would lead to violence and that now that she's been a victim of violence that that is somehow vindication of her assertion, you're wrong.
None of the similar ads, on either side of the aisle, nor did the DailyKos postings "targeting" her and putting a "bulls eye" on her, or the DailyKos poster that said she was "dead to him" cause any violence. It just didn't happen.
I'm sorry Ms. Giffords mischaracterized the affects of the SarahPAC ad but, she did.
I think you should leave her alone.
*sigh* as I posted in the original thread, before all the information came out, it doesnt matter whether she influenced the shooter or not (and I acknowledge she didnt, in fact I have never accused her of doing so in any thread here). The fact that Giffords made that public accusation was going to result in journalists/people following that angle, and it was going to affect Palin negatively.
are you going to join Yoni in dismissing the significance of Giffords statement? You don't think the victim's statement singling out the crosshair ad gave credence, right or wrong, to the theory that Palin's ad contributed to the political climate that resulted in the attack?
I understand you guys don't want to say anything that might appear to give credence to that theory. But I'm not asking you to. All I am saying is that this wasn't a complete media fabrication, by the simple FACT that the victim devised the hypothesis. Is this such a crazy, outlandish statement? Find me a post where I said Palin is responsible, maybe my english has deteriorated and I'm not expressing myself properly.
*sigh* the "right-wing-rhetoric-causes-violence" has been a constant meme of the left for quite some time. It wouldn't be unlike a Democrat politician to use it in an attack against their opponent.
It would have been more credible if she had also criticized such ads from the left, as well.
As for the media, they had the template ready to go...they jumped on the Times Square bomber. Ooops, didn't fit the narrative.
They jumped on this and had the words of an unconscious Congresswoman to stand on. But, even as the evidence started to refute the narrative, they clung to it.
thank you for finally addressing the statement.
I'm not trying to get you to criticize Giffords, though you are free to do so and have reason to do so. What I've been trying to point out is that Giffords statement, rightly or wrongly, made a connection with Palin, violence, and herself, and that it shouldnt come as a surprise that when something violent did happen to Giffords, media/people would use that statement to connect Palin to the event.
In any murder/assault where the victim denounced perceived threats, wouldn't you expect the media/police to analyse those threats, regardless of their validity? You can continue to debunk the validity of the perceived threat, I have no problem with that. It just annoys me that you treat it like a complete media fabrication to demonize Palin, when the victim herself made the claim.
high blood libel ground
You might have an argument if the media hadn't been biting at the bit to run with the narrative for a very long time.
Example 1: Some Muslim extremist kills over a dozen people at Fort Hood. While all indications are the shooter was a Muslim extremists, the media explored the right-wing angle while the President and the left counseled restraint -- restraint from trying to pin this on Muslim extremism, that is.
Example 2: Some Muslim extremist tries to blow up a car bomb in Times Square. The media, with the complicity of Bloomberg and leftist pundits, immediately began supposing it was a right-wing extremist pissed off about Obamacare.
Now, when you have a Congresswoman, who complained about the rhetoric, shot; they were all too happy to drag out the same narrative.
That's bad enough. That they continued -- and, in some cases, intensified -- the narrative, in the face of growing evidence to the contrary, says less about what impact Congresswoman Giffords' words had on the story than the existing narrative they are always ready to pull off the shelf.
It was fairly apparent, within hours of the shooting, that political rancor and rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting... At the very least they could have backtracked, apologized and set out in the right direction.
No, they decided to ignore the human tragedy, the truth, and the reputations of those they were libeling in order to serve their liberal masters and try to make this about some mythical right-wing, Tea Party, violence-inciting, hate machine.
I don't buy that it was an honest mistake. I believe it was calculated.
Palin ed up when she tried to claim ubervictimhood from the people who actually got shot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...k-fox-strategyAnother poll, for the Washington Post and ABC, found that 30% of voters approved of Palin's remarks after the Tucson shootings, while 46% disapproved. President Barack Obama, in contrast, had a 78% approval rating for his handling of events.
No matter how yoni tries to spin it, Palin blew it.
the truth is that a guy went on a killing spree at a democratic rally.
this is the only thing certain.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
