[lpkmckenna]

Continuing to hide from the media, Sarah Palin picks the very day of the remembrance ceremony to play the "poor me" card in a FaceBook video. And of course, she's a victim of "blood libel," even though it was a Jewish woman shot in the head by a crazy nut who loved Mein Kampf.

Keep digging your political grave, you vapid twit.

"After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern and now with sadness to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event." The resulting "blood libel" serves "only to incite the hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."

That's right: putting crosshars on your opponents isn't inciting violence, but complaining about someone putting using crosshair on your opponents is inciting violence.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I will further state that you would be one of the first people to stand up and condemn our hypothetical Muslim, even though you say you wouldn't. Because you will see that person's communications as "inciting violence", while you would see the exact same communications coming from a Christian TV pundit whom you agree with as having nothing to do with the violence.

This is typical of the constant need to make lame moral equivalency arguments and try and paint Christians as being equally guilty of inciting violence as radical Muslim clerics.

In the real world, there's virtually no correlation. It's on you to find a real world example of a Christian TV pundit or whatever other strawman you want to come up with doing the same things to sponsor, harbor, martyr, etc. voilent nutbags as the myriad examples in the Muslim world. And of course the big irony is, in the lone cases where this can be shown, virtually everyone -most of all other Christians- denounces it, not makes up lame excuses for it.

I know that P.C. for some strange reason keeps you from ever acknowledging that, but so be it. That's your problem, not mine.

It has nothing to do with my agreeing with the person or not (again, that's something people are trying to drag into this clearly based on their own biases, rather than more rational thought processes.)

I've made exactly this same point before using Buddhists, Atheists, Christians, and practically every other religion (or lack thereof) on earth that doesn't as commonly sponsor, condone, harbor or martyr terrorists that use the same beliefs as an excuse for violence.

The same point about free speech not being dictated by the loonies of society has already been addressed on this forum before as well, and I've weighted in on it.

It came up recently with the "Muslims will be incited to violence by what people post on Facebook" (oh noes!) subject that cropped up last year. The 'argument' there was fairly similar: that whether it steps on someone's widdle PC toes or not, people in a free society can post cartoons of Mohammad on Facebook if they want, and it's not 'inciting' violence for any nutballs that choose to use it as an excuse.

In that discussion, I commented on how it was retarded for Europeans to let nutballs dictate their freedoms (banning cartoons and speech Muslims may be offended by) and questioned if the same standards applied to Christians and others. It was pointed out that there have been laws outlawing cartoons that Jews might find offensive also. My take was that is EQUALLY stupid- on multiple levels. First off- applying a stupid standard 'both ways' is still stupid, and it's also even dumber to pretend that Jews have anything like the same track record of being 'incited' to violence by nasty cartoons created about them.

The solution to nutballs who act out violently, isn't banning freakin' cartoons or silencing free-speech or hand-wringing over what's posted on the Internet.

Now here we are again.

Some people just can't seem to fathom that cartoons, movies, graphics on websites, etc. aren't legit incitements to 'violence' by crazy people, and that in a free society, we can't allow ourselves to let crazy people dictate everything the rest of us can and can't do.

Yes, Virginia, people are free to post stupid stuff on Facebook, and yes, Virginia, people can post images on their websites without being held accountable to every nut that comes along and does something voilent, and especially when the "connection" was 100% ass-pulled in the first place, as in this case.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sarah Palin obsession

Clearly she incites you to random acts of stupidity.

[besson3c]

The Obama speech was quite touching... seeing Gifford's husband, learning more about those shot, learning about husbands shielding their wives from bullets, etc.

Obama Arizona Speech: 'I Want America To Be As Good As She Imagined It'

[Big Mac]

I was going to post a thread on reactions to the memorial (that strangely appeared to be more like a pep rally) because I didn't think it really belonged in this thread. But since besson posted here's here I'll post mine too.

1. The speeches were quite good in general. I didn't relate to the Indian professor that much, but his invocation had the proper tone and reverence for the country. I tuned out as a matter of course during Holder's speech (sorry), but again in general the speeches worked. The hero from the scene who spoke was inspiringly humble.

2. Governor Brewer gave an effective if generic chief executive speech.

3. I admired the choice of Secretary Napolitano to read from the prophet Isaiah, although I found her particular choice of verses to read to be mostly incongruent with the audience that it was directed to (i.e. the American people). She could have found a portion of Isaiah more generally applicable to the non-Jewish world; if anyone doesn't understand what I mean by this critique and want to know, please PM me. Additionally, the excerpt chosen was longer than it should have been for this setting, and it seemed even less relevant to the occasion given that Napolitano did not embed the prophet's words within her own speech on the topic. Nonetheless, I appreciated the sentiment and choice of scripture (if largely for my own religious reasons) even though there was a mismatch with the audience. Don't misunderstand me, though - the scripture she read had parts that were very relevant to the occasion, but the prophecy as a whole in context is for a different national recipient (the Jewish nation) and a different type of occasion (redemption rather than tragedy). I'd love to know how her speech came across to the general public (at least the subset of the public who cared).

4. President Obama's speech was

 

just about politically pitch perfect, although it went some number of minutes too long. This was a very well crafted and finely delivered address, perhaps the best of his presidency thus far. As the arch-conservative many of you know me to be, I could find very little to be critical of. Very little. Yes, there were a couple of brief partisan intimations, but they were quite muted and nuanced. I also appreciated the scriptural references, in large part because of their sources, obviously, and also because they were well integrated into the speech (as opposed to Napolitano's usage of scripture). The president delivered the speech with warmth and conviction. While I wish the speech could have done a little more to rebuke the gross misconduct of the Left on the heels of the shooting, inclusiveness and constructive civil debate was the proper overarching message. Obama's job approval ratings will increase as a result of his response to the attack, and it may ensure him victory in 2012.

[lpkmckenna]

The Mecca of bigotry continues to live up to its label: Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign.

After reading this in Harpers Magazine, I can't believe what a backwards shithole Arizona has become, politically speaking. More like Somalia than America. They hate government so much, they sold off the state capital building. Can you imagine selling the Capital or the White House? Do the people in Arizona have no pride?

And what about this:

Funding was slashed at the agency that deals with reports of child abuse and neglect, and also at Children’s Rehabilitative Services, so that parents of children with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and a number of other conditions are now required to pay 100 percent of treatment costs.

Shame!

[KeyLimePi]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's right: putting crosshars on your opponents isn't inciting violence, but complaining about someone putting using crosshair on your opponents is inciting violence.

You seem to be defeating your own point. Plain was responding to the people who rushed to judgment and assumed the killings were politically charged, which we know they weren't.OSo, you're allowed to criticize those people but she's not?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Mecca of bigotry continues to live up to its label: Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign.

And yet... amidst all this violent rhetoric and threats of violence against black people and those opposed to the Tea Party darling Hayworth was at such a fever pitch in Arizona that a Democrat Congresswoman, many assistants, and a Federal judge were all hanging out with zero security?

There seems to be a disconnect here and it seems no one expected or even had remote concern this was a possibility. I'm thinking the concern here is ratcheted an awful lot, particularly considering the facts of this case which illustrate clearly to anyone paying attention that this guy had ZERO to do with the Tea Party. Who shall we blame and whose speech shall we "tone-down" for all the death threats against noteworthy conservatives?

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here's one thats sure to throw ya'll into a conniption
Revelation 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.

Obama healed her by opening her eyes. Amazingly right before the pep rally. lol.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Obama is the antichrist! Awesome timing!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

And what about this:

Funding was slashed at the agency that deals with reports of child abuse and neglect, and also at Children’s Rehabilitative Services, so that parents of children with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and a number of other conditions are now required to pay 100 percent of treatment costs.

Shame!

Maybe they're just fans of Ayn Rand.

[BadKosh]

That the left isn't complaining about Matthews, Maddow et al, seems to suggest those folks have no audience.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

That the left isn't complaining about Matthews, Maddow et al, seems to suggest those folks have no audience.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...-11-2011/78346

[k2director]

First you liberal wackos blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a clearly insane man, without *any* connection whatsoever between the assassin and Palin. None. If there's any difference between a Salem Witch Trial, and what has been done this past week to Palin, I can't see much of one.

Then you blame Palin for defending herself, because you think her saying "blood libel" is too provocative.

LIBERAL WACKO.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Continuing to hide from the media, Sarah Palin picks the very day of the remembrance ceremony to play the "poor me" card in a FaceBook video. And of course, she's a victim of "blood libel," even though it was a Jewish woman shot in the head by a crazy nut who loved Mein Kampf.

Keep digging your political grave, you vapid twit.

"After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern and now with sadness to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event." The resulting "blood libel" serves "only to incite the hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."

That's right: putting crosshars on your opponents isn't inciting violence, but complaining about someone putting using crosshair on your opponents is inciting violence.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by k2director 

First you liberal wackos blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a clearly insane man, without *any* connection whatsoever between the assassin and Palin. None. If there's any difference between a Salem Witch Trial, and what has been done this past week to Palin, I can't see much of one.

Then you blame Palin for defending herself, because you think her saying "blood libel" is too provocative.

LIBERAL WACKO.

Thanks for playing.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Maybe they're just fans of Ayn Rand.

Just like the shooter.

[BadKosh]

Whats pathetic is the left continues to blather gun control or trying to shut up the rights criticism of the left long after that became moot.

Gun control instead of better ways to stop nutcases? It's not like gun control stops criminals and nutcases from getting a firearm if they behave themselves. Once you start looking close at who the real "callers for violence types" are, you realize they are left-wing nutjobs.
The political left is trying to control the content in the speeches or broadcasts of right-wing commentators while the disconnected lefty commentators continue off point hate-filled BS is getting old. Don't they realize the more they go on, the more they look like the dolts they really are? They are making great commercials for the right the longer they blather.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Whats pathetic is the left continues to blather gun control or trying to shut up the rights criticism of the left long after that became moot.

What's pathetic is when either side makes generalizations about the other side.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And yet... amidst all this violent rhetoric and threats of violence against black people and those opposed to the Tea Party darling Hayworth was at such a fever pitch in Arizona that a Democrat Congresswoman, many assistants, and a Federal judge were all hanging out with zero security?

There seems to be a disconnect here and it seems no one expected or even had remote concern this was a possibility. I'm thinking the concern here is ratcheted an awful lot, particularly considering the facts of this case which illustrate clearly to anyone paying attention that this guy had ZERO to do with the Tea Party. Who shall we blame and whose speech shall we "tone-down" for all the death threats against noteworthy conservatives?

Gee, are you taking the lead from this guy or something: Gabrielle Giffords is partially responsible for the deadly shooting.

"It's political gamesmanship," Humphries, who ran for office himself once, said. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"

Yes, let's blame the woman who was shot in the head. That will work out great for you wingnuts.

[SpaceMonkey]

She was asking for it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

And of course, she's a victim of "blood libel," even though it was a Jewish woman shot in the head by a crazy nut who loved Mein Kampf.

Alan Dershowitz doesn't have a problem with her usage of the term blood libel in context, but of course our resident champion of Semitic sensitivity; lpkmckenna is here to dawn his cape in defense of Jewish peoples everywhere.

More evidence that the most reprehensible thing Palin and the Tea Party are guilty of is inciting voters last November.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, let's blame the woman who was shot in the head. That will work out great for you wingnuts.

At a time when most others are trying to dial back their misinformation campaign, you're at full steam ahead eh? Seek help.

"It's political gamesmanship," Humphries, who ran for office himself once, said. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"

Let me translate this for you because I can tell you're so dug into this notion that everyone must think like you or be silenced that you've lost every last bit of sense you had.

He's saying your tactic is political gamesmanship. He's saying that in fact Giffords was not in fear of her life. She was not in fear of being targeted. He's saying that in spite of all the hate-filled, angry rhetoric, (what just a short couple of years ago was healthy dissent of course) no one that day was in fear of being targeted. He's saying that in light of the facts surrounding this incident, the feigned concern is actually nothing more than sour-grapes outrage at the outcome of November's election expressed by a bunch of teeth-grinding leftists that will stoop to the absolute lowest common denominator to express their anger.

You affirm this gamesmanship with every post.

[Athens]

Every time I see Sarah Palin talking, I swear to god I feel like im watching a female Hitler talking. She is so fake.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lint police 

"branding" a tragedy. Pathetic.



apparently they forgot the backlash from the wellstone memorial when they tried this.

qfmft!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The usual argument against tighter gun control is that "if guns are criminalized, only the criminals will have guns....

Actually, I think that the usual argument is that the founding fathers already thought long and hard about this, and made sure that the Constitution didn't allow for tighter gun control, and did so for a reason.

What's next, licenses for pencils that misspell?

[OldManMac]

A more accurate assessment, IMO.

Should We Be Surprised? – Politics – Utne Reader

"Yes, it takes a seriously disturbed individual to open fire on a crowd of innocent people, whether those people are schoolchildren, former co-workers, or merely random targets. You cannot, however, separate Jared Loughner’s actions from the political climate in which they occurred, and to pretend that the attempted (and explicitly planned) assassination attempt on a member of the United States Congress—an attempt that claimed the lives of six others, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge—was purely the act of an isolated madman operating in a moral vacuum is disingenuous, at best."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Alan Dershowitz doesn't have a problem with her usage of the term blood libel in context, but of course our resident champion of Semitic sensitivity; lpkmckenna is here to dawn his cape in defense of Jewish peoples everywhere.

Congrats on finding a Jew who wasn't offended. Of course, this "rational" fellow advocates things like torture warrants, bulldozing the homes of innocent Palestinians, and reasonable doubt in favor of OJ Simpson.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

"Yes, it takes a seriously disturbed individual to open fire on a crowd of innocent people, whether those people are schoolchildren, former co-workers, or merely random targets. You cannot, however, separate Jared Loughner’s actions from the political climate in which they occurred, and to pretend that the attempted (and explicitly planned) assassination attempt on a member of the United States Congress—an attempt that claimed the lives of six others, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge—was purely the act of an isolated madman operating in a moral vacuum is disingenuous, at best."

Actually, you can do EXACTLY that because all the evidence is pointing this to being the same type of "lone nut" act of violence that the world has seen since the dawn of time.

There's ZERO...NONE...NADA evidence that Loughner's rational for killing someone well known was any different than any of the other nuts who seek out public figures to make an example of, as part of a pattern of insanity fueled violence. T

Every person I see try to forward such a logically fallacious argument simply has no intellectual credibility in my book. It's one thing to wonder, in your head, if when such things happens if it could be politically motivated, but to continue down that path after it's well known that there is likely ZERO causation in this instance simply paints one as a politically motivated paranoid. Sorry, but you aren't really "thinking" if you are making this type of generalization.

[besson3c]

Well, because there is zero evidence doesn't necessarily mean that there was zero causation, it just means that there is zero evidence, and therefore one cannot claim there to be in fact causation when there is no evidence to support this. In reality, this guy probably had some political viewpoints, but if he were here to share them with us they may very well be incoherent anyway.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, I think that the usual argument is that the founding fathers already thought long and hard about this, and made sure that the Constitution didn't allow for tighter gun control, and did so for a reason.

What's next, licenses for pencils that misspell?

Well thanks for that tangent.

[lpkmckenna]

“Sarah Palin knows angry speech isn’t a call to violence. Unless it’s angry speech directed at Sarah Palin in which case it is a call to violence.” – Stephen Colbert

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, because there is zero evidence doesn't necessarily mean that there was zero causation, it just means that there is zero evidence, and therefore one cannot claim there to be in fact causation when there is no evidence to support this.

You are correct. Also, space aliens could have abducted him and engaged in mind control experiments on him, and caused him to act. While there's no evidence of an alien abduction, that doesn't mean that there isn't causation there either. Based on the rationale you give, we should also be starting a campaign against alien abductions post Arizona massacre.

In reality, this guy probably had some political viewpoints, but if he were here to share them with us they may very well be incoherent anyway.

Because he's crazy. That's why he killed. Sarah Palin had nothing to do with it. Anyone who suggests any kind of link at this point is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, and just looking to score political points off of a tragedy - and the mainstream media is full of these folks right now and they should be ashamed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

“Sarah Palin knows angry speech isn’t a call to violence. Unless it’s angry speech directed at Sarah Palin in which case it is a call to violence.” – Stephen Colbert

No, just the death threats against her which may be at an all-time high. Should you be accountable for this?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Congrats on finding a Jew who wasn't offended. Of course, this "rational" fellow advocates things like torture warrants, bulldozing the homes of innocent Palestinians, and reasonable doubt in favor of OJ Simpson.

My only point was that he's a much more noteworthy Jewish activist than you. You might know, he doesn't have to necessarily wreak of credibility to have more relevance in this discussion than you.

In regards to OJ Simpson, he was tried by a jury of his peers and acquitted of two counts of murder. Should we abandon a judicial process that found reasonable doubt by virtue of the fact that lpkmckenna doesn't like the outcome? A more wavering advocate of civil/social justice you'll never know.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

“Sarah Palin knows angry speech isn’t a call to violence. Unless it’s angry speech directed at Sarah Palin in which case it is a call to violence.” – Stephen Colbert

That might be funny if it actually made any sense. Palin has had actual death threats and angry rhetoric pointed towards her.

Complaining that valid death threats because of her political views might lead to violence isn't an unreasonable complaint.

However, complaining that a crazy person who acted because he was crazy was somehow influenced by a woman he probably never listened to, isn't a reasonable complaint. It's a political smear.

More illogical moral equivalency.... :sigh:

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, you can do EXACTLY that because all the evidence is pointing this to being the same type of "lone nut" act of violence that the world has seen since the dawn of time.

He targeted Giffords because of her political beliefs; whether he's crazy or not is irrelevant. You lose. Again.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

He targeted Giffords because of her political beliefs

Could you give me a citation for that? I've not seen any evidence that politics had played a part of it. He apparently had been obsessed with Giffords for years after she refused to answer a very odd question of his, and there's absolutely no evidence that anything that Sarah Palin did influenced him to act. ZERO. Everything else is unsupportable speculation.

Without any evidence, you lose.

[Laminar]

All of you lose. Repeatedly. By taking part in this discussion.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

All of you lose. Repeatedly. By taking part in this discussion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

All of you lose. Repeatedly. By taking part in this discussion.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Physician, heal thyself.

Please point out where I'm taking part in the "IT'S THE LEFT'S FAULT." "NO, IT'S THE RIGHT FAULT." "NO YOU GUYS SUCK." "NO YOU GUYS DO." discussion.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Please point out where I'm taking part in the "IT'S THE LEFT'S FAULT." "NO, IT'S THE RIGHT FAULT." "NO YOU GUYS SUCK." "NO YOU GUYS DO." discussion.

You called me a lefty. That hurt, man.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Please point out where I'm taking part in the "IT'S THE LEFT'S FAULT." "NO, IT'S THE RIGHT FAULT." "NO YOU GUYS SUCK." "NO YOU GUYS DO." discussion.

You generically said "In this discussion," which would seem to include any debate in this thread.

Otherwise, we have two points of contention.

A. An invented point with no basis in reality (that Palin and others had a role in the murders).
B. That the invented point is an effort to smear and politically silence others (logic would dictate this to be the case given that there is really no evidence for A.).

A. creates heated political rhetoric where none is required. B. is a response to the intellectual dishonesty and smears created by A.

Really, this argument is like saying that when someone punches you in the nose, both the puncher and the punchee are equally being disruptive when the punchee complains loudly about the wrongdoing done to them.

Sorry, it doesn't wash. People can either shut their traps when it comes to the dishonest attempts to smear others for political gain, or have it pointed out that they are engaging in shameful and cynical opportunism.

[Athens]

"Will some one please think about the Children..."

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Athens 

"Will some one please think about the Children..."

That should be the pep rall.. err memorial service slogan. You could make T-Shirts and Signs even.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You called me a lefty. That hurt, man.

Opportunist.

[olePigeon]

I can't believe how much conservatives have been politically silenced. I haven't heard so much as a peep.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I can't believe how much conservatives have been politically silenced. I haven't heard so much as a peep.

RAH RAH RAH. I LOVE OBAMA.

Oh yeah, a child died. Sorry.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

RAH RAH RAH. I LOVE OBAMA.

Oh yeah, a child died. Sorry.

Umm, OK.

[Lint Police]

SHOCKER OF THE WEEK!

Team Obama Using "Together We Thrive" from Tuscon Memorial!

Organizing for America | John Berry IV's Blog: Together We Thrive