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