Which is it?
 

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...818696964.html

I found this to be an interesting commentary on the events of the last week. Though I do believe that the inflammatory nature of American politicians and pundits has only further polarized the nation, I also believe that to place a large amount of blame on Arizona's tragedy on Mrs. Palin is, to a degree, misguided.
She is a very divisive figure in the realm of American politics, but she is not responsible for the senseless actions in Arizona. That being said, her recent video response did little to help her, particularly with her blood libel reference.
But I digress, please read the article and let me know what you think.

Option #3. We as a nation now see what an actual "2nd Amendment remedy" or "watering the tree of freedom" would look like and we're appalled, regardless of the shooter's motivation. Such "solutions" have been advocated by Palin, Angle, Bachmann and others and now they're trying to back away from them with the able assistance of people like Glenn Reynolds.

In a rather strange speech Palin claimed that words she used could not cause violence and that the words of those who spoke out against her were putting her and others in danger. Excuse me? Either words can cause violence or they can't.

To me it blows my mind that so many people could listen to her and think, "Yeah, she is really on point. She would make great decisions and prove to be a great leader of my country."

For such ignorance to be lauded by millions of Americans as pride or I wont put up with any liberal bullshit is very troubling to me. Though I am not exactly enamored with some things that Mr. Obama has done during his time in office. He is a much better representative for the American people than someone the likes of Mrs. Palin.

Yeah, but she "Loves America and American Babies and fuzzy, warm, playfull puppies and the Flag and other patrioticy thingies....". But, Obama is the anti-Christ who's out to destroy America and drown puppies and he hates babies----(Especially the White ones....).....................

Dave

Where has Mr. Obama proclaimed that he hates babies and puppies and what policies has he signed or enacted that are leading to the destruction of the US from the inside (Other than the tax cuts for the wealthy and his renewal of the Patriot Act in February of last year)?;)

Actually, this response looks like option A. You're tying the shooter to Palin, Angle and Bachman, when no proof of a connection exists. I'm not getting how this is "Option 3."

I know, but i was sort of serious with regards to the tax cuts and Patriot Act renewal Mr. Chancey Gardener:cool:

To begin with there are millions of ignorant Americans. Her approval rating was at 22%, there are 330 million people here, do the math I get 72,600,000 but my calculator is an old one and will not accept 330 million. Howevr I would guess that 22% of the population being gullible is not unlikely. Barnum had summat to say about that.:p

He hasn't. It was sarcasm.

The direct connection doesn't matter. There appears to be little you do understand. Are you ever going to answer the question?

Exactly. Not everything is black or white.

Well, let me try to field this one.

Think of it like this. That "ground zero mosque". Do you think anyone at that mosque was part of the 9/11 attacks? Of course, we know they weren't. The people who did it are dead. Even more so, this particular group is very much against the radical ideas of some Muslims. Fox even had them on and praised them at one point.

But a lot of Americans oppose them building that mosque because of 9/11. The oppose it because they find similarities in Muslim beliefs in general and the attitudes that brought about 9/11. By your definition, they're linking the people at that mosque with the 9/11 attacks.

No, they oppose it because they think the only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim. They see the world in black and white, on or off, us and them. They're simpletons, Ed. The concept of a "gray area" is beyond their scope of vision.

Dave

I'm glad we all agree...:rolleyes:

Right. As long as the left can continue to cast aspersions on a particular group or subgroup due to an unrelated event, the facts don't seem to matter....:rolleyes:

Sorry, why did I waste my time trying to explain that? I'm trying to engage in a discussion, but when you quip something like that you make Dave look right. It doesn't seem that you care to understand, you'd rather just argue.

unrelated event my ass.

This garbage you post infuriates me so be happy.

Take some personal responsibility buddy.

Whell, the fact remains that Palin, Bachmann and Angle were all cheerleaders for the 2nd Amendment solution (phrased differently among them). Along of a sudden, a miscreant perceives a politician with whom he has a bitch and he shoots her, demonstrating to the world what a 2nd Amendment solution looks like.

What should the public be doing - continuing to cheer these 3 gals when they allude to the 2nd Amendment solution? No, such demagogues should be shunned. Simple as that.

So, did you help Sarah prepare her victimhood video?

Regards,

D-Ray

Good lord, Whell. This is the GOP's stock and trade. Does the "Ground Zero Mosque" ring a bell? I'm hoping you were typing this with your fingers crossed behind your back. Otherwise, you've just confirmed that Republicans don't grasp irony.

Provide proof that the shooter paid any attention to any of the individuals mentioned above, and I might listen to any more of this BS. The evidence continues to mount that none of these individuals, nor anything they may have said, influenced the shooter AT ALL. Simple as that.

Like the shooter, Palin is someone I don't pay much attention to.

I'm not happy that mounting facts seem to matter little. I can't take responsibility if folks choose to ignore the facts.

NYT Article quote: Mr. Gutierrez said his friend had become obsessed with the meaning of dreams and their importance. He talked about reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “The Will To Power” and embraced ideas about the corrosive, destructive effects of nihilism — a belief in nothing. And every day, his friend said, Mr. Loughner would get up and write in his dream journal, recording the world he experienced in sleep and its possible meanings.

“Jared felt nothing existed but his subconscious,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “The dream world was what was real to Jared, not the day-to-day of our lives.”

And that dream world, his friend said, could be downright strange.

“He would ask me constantly, ‘Do you see that blue tree over there?’ He would admit to seeing the sky as orange and the grass as blue,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “Normal people don’t talk about that stuff.”

He added that Mr. Loughner “used the word hollow to describe how fake the real world was to him.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us...hner.html?_r=1

Yep, sounds like someone who was certainly predisposed to follow national politics closely, particularly the comments of Palin, etc. :rolleyes:

Did you even read my post? I didn't ascribe a cause and effect relationship. All I said is that you can't be a cheerleader for 2nd Amendment solutions and then bury your pom-poms when somebody actually does it, whether or not they even knew you existed.

Isn't a bit like advocating for bestiality and then indicating disgust when you see someone doing it with a horse?

The only damn thing being ignored here is the fact that the right has campaigned on and rallied the threat of violence and when invoked they claim bloodless hands.

maybe you can provide a hundred links to support your distorted view as usual?

There are consequences to the call for violence and Palin and the right want no part of that responsibility.

Yes, I read it. I've actually read many of your posts. You've framed this issue in a number of ways. You've framed is an a gun rights/gun rhetoric issue:

You've also suggested that the GOP's rhetoric is responsible"

Both arguments to me are straw dogs until theres actually evidence that the shooter was motivated by anyone's "reactionary" rhetoric, or was moved by descriptions of Democrat policy in "existential, even apocalyptic, terms."

No one has but the right is "pulling a Palin" and playing the victim.

Sarah and the right simply suggested gun violence was a way to accomplish political change and it happened so why blame them?

Screw him Pat, he simple wants to make you bring the level of evidence to "his" level of acceptance (which is constantly moving) when it's just not relevant to the real issue.

It's a BS argument and has nothing to do with truth.

Giggle, giggle . . . It seems to me that you have been paying an inordinate amount of time on the shooter, seeking to show that he was independently insane. Indeed, your very next post focused on such details. You have selected the direct link between Loughner and SP, et al as your straw man. In that way you have avoided discussing the topic that most reasonable people would agree is fitting: Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences? In light of your MO, it makes little sense for me to do so, but I will again refer you to the question above. It seems like you are not willing to respond to a question that you have not framed.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yeah, I'm kinda ticked you won't respond to my, I thought, well reasoned explanation. I'll assume you just don't have any reasonable response.

Reynold's article absolutely makes sense and he is fair and balanced in his assessment of the situation.

Sorry - I misworded that post. Should have read: "Just like the shooter paid little attention to Palin, I've not paid much attention to her...

..or something like that.

I don't believe I've ever said that the shooter was insane. His actions are certainly not rational and if I'm a better on it I'd put money that his attorney would go for an insanity defense (they'd likely do well with it too).

I'll respond to it: "Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences?"

In this country, thank God, there is a peaceful solution such that a "peaceful revolt" can occur on election day. There have been such people, and such groups, throughout the history of this country - anarchists - who have advocated for violence in place of appropriate dissent. They have all been dealt with appropriately by the law.

We do have a Constitution that provides for legal action against those that make such threats. None of the folks mentioned - Palin or whomever - has ever been brought up on charges, tried of convicted for any such offense. So, it appears that their rhetoric was deemed metaphorical, otherwise I suspect that this Justice Department would have moved with due speed to round these folks up.

Do I have an issue with anarchists? Sure. Do I have an issue with those in the political arena who use metaphors in a political campaign? No, and most intelligent folks can tell the difference.

Lots has been flying here. Was it me that you're suggesting missed your post? Which one?

Please don appropriate protection first. :p

How big a group do you figure the "intelligent folks" who can tell the difference is made up of? 80%, 50% 30%? The problem is that even if it is only 20% who aren't intelligent folks, that still leaves plenty of people to buy into the inflammatory rhetoric of "taking down our enemies."

I'm making a difference between illegal and inadvisable. I've mentioned that Rep. Brady's floated bill is ridiculous. I'm not sure that you can legislate sensibility any more than you can legislate morality. It is, however, fair grounds to suggest that those who use violent rhetoric (and I'm talking about a bit more than using descriptive phrases) should take responsibility for and be held politically responsibly for their pollution of American discourse.

Regards,

D-Ray

No offense, but I ain't interested.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

Maybe, but it strains credulity. If this were true, politicians would be dropping in the streets at an alarming rate, and it would have been going on since Washington's day. There have certainly been incidents overtime, but nothing near the rate that your numbers would suggest.