Sarah Palin Accuses Journalists Of 'Blood Libel,' Calls Loughner 'Apolitical' (VIDEO)

Everyone should read this article that Saiyan posted...pay special attention to the parts Saiyan did "not" use selectively. This is again why Liberals have lost the faith and trust of the American people, half truths are just as bad as outright lies.

I read it and I think you're hoping that other people won't. Here's some the other parts:

"With a long list of enemies, a taste for incendiary rhetoric and responsibility for a campaign website graphic that placed gun-sight logos on a map of targeted congressional districts, it didn't take long for Sarah Palin to get pulled into the orbit of Saturday's massacre in Tucson, Ariz."

"Gov. Palin should not overreact to this but, rather, rise above the ugly political blame game," counseled Mueller, a veteran of past GOP presidential campaigns.

But Palin herself, however, had in the past tweeted about the map in questions and referred to the targets as "bulls eye[s]."

What other parts do you want us to read?

@ Super

You'd think in retrospect of Gifford's words about Palin's rhetoric and especially in retrospect of the shooting, Palin would have said something along the lines of "My words and actions were never said or meant in a violent way. My apologies if anyone misconstrued them as such."

In this way, she woudn't be acknowleding the alleged premise that incendiary political rhetoric may have influenced the shooter.

Instead, she implies that she is the victim, and uses a controversial word to the Jewish faith. I'm especially surprised at Palin's word choice considering Giffords is Jewish. It's hard to believe that Palin would have missed how controversial the usage of such a word would be, given the dynamics of the situation.

To follow-up on my #2.3 post - I think a cousin of Giffords said it best:

Ms. Palin, the moment calls for more than this. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and of your right to defend your words and to challenge those who seek to connect them to the assassination attempt and murders in Tucson, Arizona. I also know that there is often a very long distance between words and actions.

But even if your map and your language had nothing to do with these murders or any others that might occur in the future, a compassionate response would acknowledge that possibility and indicate a willingness, in her honor, in honor of the people who died, to consider this concern.

Whether or not you are willing to take this concern seriously, it is, nevertheless a critical moment to clarify your beliefs and principles. Now is the time to answer these questions and lead. link

Ms. Palin, the moment calls for more than this. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and of your right to defend your words and to challenge those who seek to connect them to the assassination attempt and murders in Tucson, Arizona. I also know that there is often a very long distance between words and actions.

But even if your map and your language had nothing to do with these murders or any others that might occur in the future, a compassionate response would acknowledge that possibility and indicate a willingness, in her honor, in honor of the people who died, to consider this concern.

Whether or not you are willing to take this concern seriously, it is, nevertheless a critical moment to clarify your beliefs and principles. Now is the time to answer these questions and lead. link

I couldn't have said it better myself...

taao

#2.1- Ms Palin has advcated "don't retreat, reload" ok? So enough with the spin. If Ms Palin had came out and stated something to the effect that if her statements may or may not have contributed to this situation she was sorry, I think she would have commanded more respect. What did she do, she came out and defended herself and not once mentioned anything about the victims to include a 9 yr old child. Her concern was strictly her own. Don't know about you but I conclude and it appears the majority of people have concluded that sort of behavior is not what they want in a President or potential presidential candidate. So you keep slinging your right wing propaganda about the so called left or liberals, the only people you are convincing of that are those who choose to believe the rhetoric and lies of people like Palin, Angle, Beck and Limbaugh just to name a few... You say liberals have lost the trust of the american people, got news for you, latest polls show more people identify themselves as Democrats than republicans...

LOL Of course thats what he was "attempting" to demonstrate. How are those demonstrations working out for Liberals by the way? But this next part...oh man thats the icing on the cake!

You say liberals have lost the trust of the american people, got news for you, latest polls show more people identify themselves as Democrats than republicans...

LOL I have no problems with them "identifying" themselves as Democrats. Just as long as they continue to do what is right by this country when they go to the polls and continue to have an "indentity crisis" at the proper times. LOL Another funny thing is...how many Democrats call themselves Liberals? Hmmmmm.

If Ms Palin had came out and stated something to the effect that if her statements may or may not have contributed to this situation she was sorry,

I think you are wrong...had she done this...liberals would have picked on the part "her statements or map" and accuse her of admitting that she was wrong...So why should she admit or apologize for something that she is not guilty of doing...The guy is a "known nut case".

I think she may have said her condolences and let it stop at that....then I understand her feeling the need to defend herself, and WHY you ask, because she was the first one blamed with blood on her hands. Which show the mentality of our Politicians out there fight for their cause...It is a sad day when Politicians uses a tragedy for their political gain. As I heard the new word...Don't be a Dupnik.

taao, what precisely would have been wrong with her saying ´I am sorry that a tragedy has occurred and if my words played any role in this tragedy I am deeply sorry and hope that the families of the victims will accept my apologies and condolences and I sincerely hope that it was not part of what I said that contributed to the tragedy at hand as that was not my intention.´But no, she could not be a bigger person and apologize regardless of partisanship or what she thought instead her narcissistic personality had to come out.

Have you already apologized for the part your words may have played in the deaths of so many in Tucson?

If not, why are you being so selfish and divisive, and continuing your talking points?

Well said BB. Back in April or May of last year I read an article that pretty much stated it very well, I even bookmarked it because of its inherent validity. This has nothing to do with Sarah Palin herself personally...Sarah Palin is just the instrument Liberals attack in their weak and spineless attempts to "attempt" to crush the Tea Party Movement itself. Again, as we saw in November Liberals failed, but it is nice to see them continue the campaign of failure in the exact same manner. "Liberal Progression" equals stagnation and failure...keep up the great work Liberals!

17. Apr, 2010

Tea Party Crashers = Total Fail

The Tea Party is the first serious, popular political movement that shows signs of having real legs in a long time in the U.S. and it is simply driving the Democratic Party and the far left out of their minds. To understand the threat the Tea Party represents to the agenda of the far left you need to understand the lynchpin of their tactics.

The rise in power of the left absolutely requires you to feel ashamed of your views.

The whole foundation of victim politics is getting well meaning, honest and reasonable people to shoulder the burden of others. It demands that you accept their equivalencies and premises. Examples…

• Don’t agree with quotas and special treatment? You must be a racist.
• Don’t think that 12 year olds should be able to get an abortion without informing their parents? You’re an anti-choice woman hater.
• Don’t like the idea of someone burning the U.S. flag? You’re a tyrant who hates free speech.
• Speak out against higher taxes? You’re a dangerous hate filled extremist who the FBI should watch.
• Want to keep the money you worked to earn? You’re a greedy @!$%# who wants the poor to die in the streets.
• Don’t believe illegal immigrants should have the right to vote? Yup, racist again!

The entire narrative of the left is designed to convince you that you are stupid, hated filled and uncaring. They need you to feel undeserving and willing to be sacrificed to the needs of others. Most of all it is designed to make you feel isolated. The last thing the want is for you to feel pride. For you to reject their narrative. For you to believe in yourself and your values.

Thanks to the internet the left is rapidly losing control of the narrative. As the plummeting ratings of CNN, MSNBC and other stations attest the general public is no longer just sucking up the bias. The more they try and ratchet up the bluster the dumber the look – and the less influence they have.

After spending months now tryign to paint the Tea Party as a movement of ignorant racists the left has finally decided that it is time to manufacture the news they want to see. A full scale series of infiltration attempts has been kicked off – with hilarious results.

For instance, we can point and chuckle at the idiocy of Jason Levin (that’s him holding the t-shirt). That is the super genius behind the website “Crash the Tea Party”. Our boy Jason is a middle school teacher – and he is even now on suspension because he created and posted this idiocy on school time and equipment. Frankly, they should just flat out suspend or fire him for being a moron. Last I checked “incite violence” wasn’t a subject we wanted taught in school*.

On it’s own this is just sort of sad and pathetic. I mean, moonbats have spent a lot of time and energy trying to drum up support so it is no shock that they would snap when faced with a real grass roots movement. Every party has their crazies right? Right.

Things get really interesting when folks who have official ties to the democratic party or its various associated groups. For instance, John Durajczyk who is the Secretary of the St. Charles County Democratic Committee and spent time being a violent infiltrator of a Tea Party rally. Just to be sociable, John brought with him a good friend named Steve Belosi who proceeded to amusing himself by attaching an elderly woman at the rally. To be fair, its the only real trick Steve has since it isn’t the first time Steve Belosi has been seen at political events attacking women. Among Steve’s other awesome traits are close ties to Code Pink, the ACLU and being a 9/11 truther nutjob.

So to recap…

• The Democratic party and their far left supporters are completely panicked.
• They have utterly failed to portray the Tea Party as racists.
• They look utterly stupid in the process.

Fun fun fun!

http://www.herdwatching.com/2010/04/tea-party-crashers-utter-fail/

taao

Thank you for your posting and it is so accurate...a very good read.

Alan considering that I have never used such nonsense as putting people behind a gunsite I somehow doubt I need to apologize...and I have never advocated violence of any kind nor advocated an overthrow of the government...by all means if you can show that I have ever done so feel free to show proof of it.

not to mention that it is a joke. those bullet points make me think that the writer may actually be delusional, and here are taao and bb singing the praises of this writer. the second bullet point is laughable.

Don't think that 12 year olds should be able to get an abortion without informing their parents? You're an anti-choice woman hater.

how many people really believe that? i would love to see some numbers. the way that the author writes it, it would be 100% of liberals. is this really the liberal mantra? i think not. the writer is projecting the views of a few extremists onto the whole sum of those who identify as liberal. since most understand that blanket generalizations, such as these are false, then i can not join in and commend this author for writing such a great piece, for i am most sure that it is actually garbage.

another bullet point

Want to keep the money you worked to earn? You're a greedy @!$%# who wants the poor to die in the streets.

oversimplifications, such as this do nothing to foster healthy debate. however, they can help to foster partisanship and divisiveness based on talking points. it is exactly this type of empty rhetoric that has led us to where we are today.

Thats why I did not post the entire article. But thanks for the advice.

" oh look, it speaks"

With improvements no less. I watched that scripted "TELEPROMPTER AIDED" dictate from the biggest fraud since the word "Fraud" was invented! There seem to be no bottom to her bottomless pit of HYPOCRACY. Also noted, this was not a News Conference. This creature is scared to death of unscripted Questions. No references of Death Panels,Seeing Russia from her house or other assorted BABBLE,this time! Who knows, maybe in another year or two,she will be ready to take her first, independent baby-steps.

Many of her rabid supporters relentlessly criticize the President for using those teleprompting devises. I wonder if this development will further crack their GLASS HOUSES? I wonder if they have ever been advised about throwing stones from those types of dwellings?

You liberals don't need any evidence to spew false accusations, you just speak from your heart which just so happens to be lies. You have NO idea what the kid was influenced by, nor do I, but I am not accusing ANYONE besides the kid himself for the tragic lose of life. It is easy to write lies with complete anonymity but this has effected several families that you speak of. Sarah did not know these people and as such shares nothing in common with the kid.

The only people to blame for this tragic situation is the kid, NO OTHERS.

You liberals don't need any evidence to spew false accusations, you just speak from your heart which just so happens to be lies.

Isn't this the type of rhetoric being discussed in the first place? Just asking a question.

2inspire2-

Who is saying that Palin's words alone are the cause of this shooting? The violent rhetoric that has been visited upon this country for the last 2-3 years is all from the Right and has indeed crossed waaaay over the line.

What would you be saying if the congressperson was a Republican? I can just imagine. This guy was complaining about intrusive government and other memes heard by conservatives. But really that doesn't matter. He is just plain crazy.

Here's the thing, you have to be careful what you say to a crazy person. If there are people out there saying certain politicians are DELIBERATELY trying to destroy the country and our way of life you're gona snare someone like this guy. It's dangerouos. It's over the line. And it has to stop.

Like I said above, Palin herself said what the "liberal" media is saying might incite violence. Which contradicts the first part of her statement.

NOTHING stands alone. Actions have consequences.

Adults know this. Most at least.

I hear you. The only time I need to see Sarah is when she's getting frog marched to a court room to face criminal and civil lawsuits by the victims and the victim's families of the Arizona massacre.

Haven't we had enough of Sarah Palin???

Had enough? I was hoping there was nothing left to be had!!!

Wow, this is what it has come to. You call the conservatives haters but that is the only thing that I am reading in this blog from the liberal view.

You might just want to do a little self-reflection because you clearly are missing something.

How does she know he is apolitical? He is not talking and he did shoot a Democratic Congresswoman.

Plus how many Democrats/liberals complain about not being on the gold standard?

This is Glenn Beck's big deal.

See I have to agree I am starting to believe it was not apolitical either. Its like his friend Zane Gutierrez said to the "Today" show and ironically...reported by MSNBC. How did the censors allow this one to slip by?

"For some reason he felt that his representative … had failed him in some way, shape or form and it really let him down on a personal level," Gutierrez said.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41034421/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Oh I'm fairly certain you get exactly what was being said...hence why your weak attempt to try and justify it. The beauty of it is that even if we were to believe for a second that you "don't get it", that is simply irrelevent. Everyday since Liberals first put these lies in place, the American people continue to show them just exactly how they feel about it. Once more the Liberal agenda has failed. So again, I am ok if you wish to opt for "smoke and mirrors". Reality is, its again simply irrelevent.

I know Colonial...you are an "Independant", and I really do not blame you for that. I get the whole distancing thing. But In case you missed it, the rest of your tirade. Simply...again, irrelevent.

If you say so. But again, nice tirade...I could swear I almost heard "Battle Hymn of the Republic" being played in the background as I read it.

taao must be having a bad day or something. his posts have not been good today (opinion). buck up, little camper. many people on the left do not blame palin, directly, or even indirectly, but many also realize that there is a lot of hateful rhetoric out there, and yes, it does come from both sides of the aisle. the fact remains that palin is still trying to paly the victim here when she could have shown a bit more respect for the victims and their families, and certainly also for those of the jewish faith. this really has nothing to do with politics, but rather common human decency.

Colonial82

If you want to be disrespectful, you are welcome to post other someone else's seed. I don't have to make up a fake person on an internet message board,...

Nice! twist it around to make "yourself" appear the victim as I attacked your post. But since you we're so polite and honest in introducing yourself and are not simply some "fake person on an internet message board" Allow me...my name is really Taao glad to meet you Colonial82...is that a family name?

Speaking of opinion...is that yours? Where is it written that I must respect or agree with your written opinion? I repect that you have a right to it...that in no way means I have to agree with it. If you want me to respect it...then post something worth respecting. Thats an earned right, and not an entitlement. If your postings earn it, then your "opinion" will have it.

Ooops almost forgot....Have a great day!

If you want me to respect it...then post something worth respecting.

What gives you the right to hold anyone to a higher standard than yourself?

PLEASE DELETE THIS AS A DUPLICATE, I POSTED IN THE WRONG SPOT!

If you say so. But again, nice tirade...I could swear I almost heard "Battle Hymn of the Republic" being played in the background as I read it.

Come on now, Taao, you can be cuter than this.

Nawwww that kind of took everything he could think of.

Awww Shucks Skye I think that is the nicest thing I have heard any Liberal ever say to... Hmmm I think thats the nicest thing I have ever heard any Liberal say!

taao

surely, you must understand that looking at anything in such an absolute way, makes that an impossible view. absolutes are almost always false. you wear your partisanship on your sleeve, and that is fine, but if you make so many blanket generalizations and accusations, then really all you are doing is stating falsehoods over and over. why would someone continue to do that? do you take pride in being so wrong?

So sorry for the victims in the tragedy but Sarah is not one of them

Palin obviously thinks she is a victim. Sickening isn't it?

Palin obviously thinks she is a victim.

She is a victim of her own words and deeds.

What did she expect to happen when you wave a gun at a rally, tell people to reload and put a "surveys mark" over a target who ends up getting shot?

Palin obviously thinks she is a victim.

And does her damnest to audition for the part, apparently even when someone else's family member has been killed.

A victum of her own shortfalls!!!

Taao; First of all why do you NEVER bring any facts to back up the opinions you bring here?

You sound exactly like the people I hear on extremist far right media so it's not hard to tell where you get your info which also answers why you are lite on facts and very heavy on conjecture.

FACT; Palin putcross hairs on this Democratic Representatives district!

FACT; Palin quote: "Don't retreat, reload!"

FACT; Palin is NOT a victim!

FACT; Gifford IS a victim!

Taao, if you want to bring "FACTS" to refute any of these please understand, Murdoch admits the majority of Fox programming is opinion programming done by commentators, not journalistic programming done by a journalist so no need for you to come back with the little catch phrase of the day by Glen Beck or limbaugh.

Also, Palin claimed to be a pitt bull, momma grizzly etc but has never shown me one instance of "toughness" but has whined and complained and plays the victim card far too much for her to be a real "tough" person.

This is NOT fear as many of you have been taught to say, it's an intense dislike for a bully!

rcr

Also, Palin claimed to be a pitt bull, momma grizzly etc but has never shown me one instance of "toughness" but has whined and complained and plays the victim card far too much for her to be a real "tough" person.

good call.

The woman uses a term without knowing it's full meaning, is this what anyone wants in a President? A person who refuses to conduct meaningful research before going public? As President this woman may invite another attack on our nation with her irresponsible acts, N.Korea, Iran and Russia who can see "her house" will take her for a joke, thus taking our nation as a joke and view her election as being the possible opening they've been looking for.. People should view American politics through the eyes of the world not just our own, because the rest of the world is watching America.... If we make a mistake, we will pay..... Under President Obama's watch, so far Al Qadea has been weakened, Iran's nuclear capabilities have been set back a few years via computer virus, treaties have been signed with Russia, N. Korea's bluff has been called and they blinked, terrorist threat of attacks have been stopped so the world knows President Obama is no joke, President Palin will be a different matter all together.... Is there anyone out there that truly thinks Palin will be a good Commander in Chief or is it all political theater? Please explain your position...

So now the crosshairs map is "vigorous and spirited public debate"?

Exactly, I listened to a replay of her dip @!$%# words on the radio this AM and this is the first thing that popped in my mind.

How in the @!$%# does a gun target on a map add anything of value to a debate? What the @!$%# does she think it is?

She got what she called for and now she doesn't have the "cajones" (her word!) to accept the consequences. Sarah, you are contemptible. Man up.

Words and their usage are meant to convey emotions as well as ideas. Being the major target of irrational ideologues who have had her in their cross-hairs for more than two years, Palin's repudiation of these massive false accusations is understandable.

Is "Blood Libel" somehow reserved exclusively to Jews accused of having innocent blood on their hands? Is it offensive to address the same viciousness and garish intentional whispering campaigns with specif words that encompass the actual reality of cause and effect, in that they convey a clarity otherwise not as vivid?

Perhaps ownership of a phrase used to attack Jews may now be thought to belong only to Jews. Be that as it may.... the fact is that the words were meant to focus the minds and thoughts of millions on the nature of the insidious and dangerous hatred used in attacking this woman.... and after all, it is clear understanding that ultimately resolves rumors, false witness, and intentional defamation

Alan, do you honestly believe that the media and citizen criticism of Palin rises to a level comparable to Jews accused of using children's blood in religioius rituals? Really?

To a very large extent, Palin keeps and tries to keep the national media attention on herself. She deliberates remains in the spotlight. I don't know what you're referring to when you mention "whispering campaigns" -- most people who dislike Palin do so openly and for clear reasons. The criticisms of her are based on her own words and the disagreement that many citizens have with her own stated ideologies. So, really, does it rise to the level of blood libel? I would suggest that her use of the term is narcissisitic at best.

Also, I don't really think that the most reasonable responses to her -- amounting to approximately, "maybe she should think before she uses crosshairs maps" -- could be considered insidiuous. To the extent the criticism is less reasonable, it is no worse that the accusations leveled constantly at Obama, and I wouldn't call that insidious either (stupid and ill-informed, maybe, but not insidious).

So your point is that Sarah Palin is a genius so liberals can't help focusing on her, talking about her, looking at her, following her, saying horrible things about her, and claiming to everybody else she is a nobody ?

Well, let't make sure RachaelMM (#6) does not own a gun.

No, it is not, Alan. Do you have an answer to the questions I asked (in #6.4)?

GG -- I'm not entirely sure why you'd feel the need to post such a thing, but rest assured, I do not own a gun.

RachaelMM - do you honestly believe that the media and citizen criticism of Palin rises to a level comparable to Jews accused of using children's blood in religioius rituals? Really?

First of all, congratulations on stating the actual question in accurate terms, rather than turning it around as so many others are intentionally doing

The term "Blood Libel" was first used to accuse Jews of having innocent blood on their hands by those who not only hated them, but also intentionally promoted and encouraged an extremely hostile reaction to anything they did or said

When you are accused of being an accessory to the murder of several innocent people by those who hate and want to hurt and destroy you, should your reaction be to carefully choose bland words so as not to offend your attackers?

Jews intentionally chose a term that succinctly explains the context and depravity of the outrageous and threatening charges against them, because they knew the more easily manipulated could be successfully urged to employ violence against them and their families

Evidence of this is that over and over, emotional lemmings brainwashed and directed to act by their ideological elite, murdered Jews and their families

When the same behavior is in evidence, with the same emotionalism and encouragement to hate, attack, and eliminate Sarah Palin and her family, cogency requires the same words to sound the same alarm before a similar outcome results in their deaths

Professor Alan Dershowitz, a highly respected and accredited Jewish scholar stated...

"The term "blood libel" has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report"

He went on to defend Plain's use of the term as proper, as has the organization Jews for Palin

ABC NEWS reports the escalating violence has been reported and that security professionals are being hired to help defend Palin and her family

Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say

alan

so it should not be offensive if someone says that because of sarah palin's words, the next election will be a holocaust for the republicans, and they will need to get the gas chambers ready to dispose of all the trash that is thrown out of office? this may be an extreme example, but people relate to terms that have been used to offend, harm, or destroy other people. these terms, themselves, are almost seen as offensive, especially if one compares their plight of being harangued in the media to the treatment that many, many jews went through. it is insensitive for her to compare her plight to that of the jews.

The true test is whether or not the words and context are appropriate and convey the fundamental nature of the thing being discussed

When Jews use the term Blood Libel to shine a spotlight on the nature of those verbal attacks, it conveys the fundamental understanding that someone is intentionally dishonest by accusing them of directly or even by indirectly having the blood of innocents on their hands

Your example of the word Holocaust is not even a close moral equivalent. Foremost is the fact that if the Republicans are the "victims" who are arrested and kept in confinement in order for liberals and Democrats to destroy them, your analogy would be more acceptable.

Since you are only talking about the possibility of Americans voting against them in large numbers, another metaphor would be more accurate

In Sarah Palin's case, several prominent Jewish educators, scholars, and Jewish interest groups have made statements that the term has become generic in nature and does accurately describe orchestrated accusations of being a murderer or an accessory to murder with the intention of defaming and destroying the target

it is insensitive for her to compare her plight to that of the jews.

Jews are people too...

You are suggesting that everyone should subscribe to some kind of racist Litmus Test to determine if the same discrimination is more acceptable against someone not in the favored racial category.

As I already noted, many Jews have already defended Palin's use of the term, since it is the situation and behavior of the attackers that is the issue, and not her race

Dear Alan,

Stop twisting the meaning of a disparaging comment to dilute what Palins part in this may be.

It is Rep Giffords that was shot in the head, not palin.

It was Palin who put crosshairs on Giffords District and it was Palin who said, (and I quote verbatim) "don't retreat, reload" it was not Gifford. Who is the victim?

Here are two instances of gun/violence by Palin and these are the responsibility of Palin and only Palin. Have you looked at how Palin has changed what she had said? If Palin did nothing wrong and she is the victim here why would she drastically alter her website from what it used to say? Have you compared the former website and how it looks currently?

Nice try on the deflection, it will NEVER change any facts.

many Jews have already defended Palin's use of the term

Alan show us all those "many"

Alan Dershowitz "excused" her as did a Jewish Advocacy Group for Palin....far from "many", though in fairness, a "couple" or "a few" have.

The defense is likely to the point of "she didn't mean it that way, because she's too fckin stoopid to realize how offensive those words are to Jews." HOWEVER, they have not defended her for playing the victim here or refusing to accept some responsibility or culpability for her words and inaction.

I see a tremendous number of posts fire continuous salvos attacking Sarah Palin, but almost no mention of who actually shot and killed so many

It is also interesting to note here and throughout almost all of liberal media, the focus on a wounded Democrat to the exclusion of a murdered Republican... why is that?

All were the victims of a deranged sociopath who has been relegated to but a mild curiosity, while Palin is the target of massive liberal hatred and venom

Oh, and one of the reasons this is a federal case is that it involved the MURDER of a FEDERAL Judge....so, yeah, it's not being ignored. HOWEVER, from a "news" standpoint, meaning "ratings", the following took precedence:

1. The targeting, assassination attempt of a Congresswoman - shot in the head....and SURVIVING.

2. The death of a 9 yr old girl, born on 9/11 of all days.

3. The heroic actions of those who stopped the shooter from reloading, and the actions of the intern who likely saved Giffords' life.

4. The 30 round magazine and the questions of "why".

Not like it matters in the grand scheme of things, but the death of the Judge and the 4 others simply got relegated to the "other" pile....at least to this point. He was NOT however ignored or dismissed by the Sheriff of Pima County, who was a close personal friend - who mentioned him FIRST at his infamous news conference, nor was it ignored by the President at the memorial, nor will it be ignored at Laughner's trial....And he CERTAINLY won't be forgotten by the community, his family, his friends and all those touched by this tragedy.

It worries my that Judge Roll has been somehow, not mentioned as much as the attempt on Giffords life...Maybe she is the one he targeted, but I don't know that when he got there if he knew who the Honorable Judge was at the time. I still say he should be Tried for killing a Federal Judge along with the lives of the others. I think he is a crazy and deranged person, but knew exactly what he was doing.

I guess you ignored my entire post....color me shocked.

webslinger

I think that I was agreeing with you...but making a point that it disappoints me that this has taken place.

BB, he has been mentioned..he was an accidental victim, not the intended target...Giffords was the intended target we all know that now.

lx chel

That is what I was saying...I know that Giffords was his intended target...I watch the news, but what I was implying was did he know who the Judge was...he could have heard the Judge's name mentioned even if in the crowd or the Judge just got caught up in the spray of bullets...either way he killed a Federal Judge and I would like him punished as doing so..

Do things get lost in translation on here or is it just me?

I doubt he knew who the judge was BB. He likely did not know who the girl was..his intended target was Giffords and he didn´t care who else he killed as long as she was killed in the process...something interesting is the first Wal mart he tried to buy ammo at denied to sell him ammo because he was acting strangely according to the clerk so he went to another Wal mart and successfully bought ammo there. Had Wal mart had some way to alert all stores about this person by name perhaps the sell would have been avoided and a tragedy avoided as well...no bullets means that the gun doesn´t work.

I know he didn't know the little girl or other's in the crowd and he was shooting at random...but what I was meaning was if by any chance Ms. Giffords had a chance to introduce the Judge to the crowd or not, but he could just have been standing by Ms. Giffords and then he was shot. but still doesn't take away from him being a Republican Judge and she is a Blue Dog Democrat so it shouldn't be spread as if it was a party incite.

I did hear about the Wal-mart situation and wondered how both Sales Person's felt when they heard about the shootings...I think I know...one felt relieved and maybe guilty because he didn't forewarn other Wal-mart's and the other felt guilty maybe, because he sold the deranged person ammo...but you know he (Loughner) may have handled himself differently with the second sales person because I think he had the sanity to do so.

The shooting happened at 10 minutes after 10 so I assume that no there was no chance to introduce anyone..they had all stood and he was told to stand in line when he jumped line and went after her.

I am not sure how they can use any computer technology to alert other stores to not sell to some loon, but there should be some technology...I am sure that the person that sold him ammo feels like dirt right now...I don´t know how I could get up and face the next day knowing I was responsible for that...

.I don´t know how I could get up and face the next day knowing I was responsible for that...

lx chel

I don't think the sales person should feel responsible...it is an item that is for sale in the store and as I said he may have passed himself off in a different manner with this clerk...but who knows...just speculating, but I don't want to pass judgement on the sales clerk, and have not heard why the first clerk turned him down...I do know he had to go back for a second time, because the store didn't sell Ammo until after 7:00, I think was the time? Not sure I am accurate about that.

I heard why he turned him down...because he was acting strangely and he refused to sell him ammo..you can refuse to sell ammo to someone.

Yes, I suppose you can refuse sale of Ammo to anyone, but what I was saying is, Loughner may have acted fine with the next Wal-mart clerk...I haven't heard about that. If only the person had refused him the sell of the semi-automatic.

People who are determined to kill will find a way to kill

Already, more people are killed by automobiles than guns, but automobiles are sold and driven every day. Loughner had one, and if he had no pistol, he could easily have roared into that parking lot and run over and killed as many as he did by shooting

Or, maybe he would have been encouraged to just strap on a bomb and walk into the crowd

I agree, If a person is wanting to kill someone there is always away...but if someone is fixated on guns especially simi auto and automatic weapons he is plainning on more than one shot...

I am not against owning guns and didn't mean it to read that way...My family members own guns and the only time they (guns) are shot is at a Range, in saying that is everyone that owns a gun is not a killer. I was meaning when Loughner went to purchase the gun that the person selling the gun had noticed his oddness, as the first Wal-mart sales person noticed and wouldn't sell the ammo to him. I think that he (loughner) is smart enough to maybe hide it...I don't know. I think maybe we need stricter assessments of gun owners.

I think maybe we need stricter assessments of gun owners.

a fellow with whom i work, got a gun permit recently. he is short-tempered, very emotional, and may be a little bat@!$%# crazy. oh well. he is local, and everyone loves him, so it was a slam dunk for him to get his permit. i hope that he doesn't shoot me, or anyone else, someday.

When I saw on the CNN ticker that she'd posted a statement, I was genuinely hopeful. Maybe it'd be conciliatory. Maybe she'd call for a toning down of the violent rhetoric, maybe she'd apologize for having used insensitive violent rhetoric in the past. Maybe she'd show some empathy. Maybe she'd be a decent human being.

This is what I get for getting my hopes up. 4 paragraphs talking about how tragic the shooting was, and 10 paragraphs complaining about how those nasty liberals are attacking her. What a sociopath.

nd 10 paragraphs complaining about how those nasty liberals are attacking her.

Some have compared Palin to a high school girl. I'd say, with her intense focus on herself, she is more like an 18 month old toddler. She's never grown past that stage to realize that there are others who also have feelings and needs.

Sarah Palin made a statement about the tragedy days ago, not mentioning the personal attacks on her

Only now, after several days of bitter and acrimonious targeting by liberals does she calmly address their amplified emotional sniping

Why would you hope Sarah Palin would be conciliatory toward her ruthless attackers when even here on Newsvine I don't see such examples by the vast majority?

On this site, not only is there little effort at reconciliation, there are even deletions and collapsed comments instead

Why would you hope Sarah Palin would be conciliatory toward her ruthless attackers when even here on Newsvine I don't see such examples by the vast majority?

Sarah Palin is a ruthless biatch who never learned the golden rule...but she knows it now..LOL!!!!

Your violent words will surely be the cause of some deranged assassin attacking someone

Sarah Palin made a statement about the tragedy days ago, not mentioning the personal attacks on her

she had a tweet, not a statement and it was ignorant as well.

i would like to see her make a well-reasoned compassionate statement without political implications of any kind intended. however, i am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. i need oxygen to live.

You know, she really is. The sad part is that she doesn't even realize she is being thrown under the buss by her own people.

Krankee, if someone else wrote for her to use that word she needs to fire them and find someone that actually supports her and will help her look smarter...I think if someone wrote that word in they actually are probably not her friend. Blood libel...come on now anyone who has any knowledge of history or knows anything about religion knows what this means.

lx#8.2

... if someone else wrote for her to use that word she needs to fire them...

doesn't matter...firing people. The narcissist always always falls on his/her own sword.

lx chel, Just had a Jewish friend remind me what blood libel meant to her. Can you post a definition of it? I can post the wiki definition but that is good that you are calling her out for using the term! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

Blood libel (also blood accusation^[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim^[3][4][5] that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.^[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.^[4]

WOW!! Just wow! Insert foot in mouth Sarah.

Krankee, yep, I pointed it out to someone else earlier but they were stepping everywhere trying to say that isn´t what the meaning is...

The origins and etymology of words is an interesting educational pursuit, and the vast majority only consider what their ideological elite tell them a word, phrase, or comment means

For others, it is more illuminating and enlightening to make continuing discoveries for themselves and thereby secure a more trustworthy education

Take the word "Emergency" for example. Would you insist it could never be used to describe some immediate danger, such as a heart attack, falling into a frozen river, or something similar?

Just so you know, the word "Emergency"originally meant there was a sudden emergence of a baby from a pregnant woman. In other words, the baby is emerging, and attention to this must be immediate to avoid tragedy.

Is it an intentional insult to pregnant women for anyone else to use that word for any other situation?

alan

you are really reaching here.

Its a tactic used by the extremists in media gorilla.

If name calling is not allowed the very next tactic is to deflect either by pointing out that Clinton and Monica were really close or by trying to parse words here.

It would be nice if the far right would "stick to the facts" but it's just not how most of them get their information. Watch fox and listen to the extremists on radio and TV and you will see within a couple days that alan is mirroring the tactics used on the programmed victims of extremist media.

I always try to nudge them back to the facts but if you look at the facts of this it's easy to see why the Republican leaders in media want to deflect away from the facts, the facts do not favor the Palinites and all the deflecting in the world will not change the facts to favor Palin.

They hear deflection and try to repeat it but most of us not being altered due to propaganda it just doesn't make any sense to not look at thye facts.

Exactly. A touch of humility would have served Palin well. Her statement as is just provides us Dems with more of her nonsense rhetoric to point to.

I can't wait to hear Obama's speech tonight.

TJG-

Me too, as far as what The President has to say in Tucson today.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel it's "odd" that Ms. Palin comes out with her statement the same day as Mr. Obama??

A touch of humility would have served Palin well.

Only among her followers. The rest of it would see it for the facade ot would actually be.

But no, she held herself blameless, and had the gall to use a comparison to the Holocaust.

Florid narcissism!!!!

Do I understand then, that you hold Sarah Palin personally responsible for causing the shootings and deaths in Tuscon recently?

Let me put it this way, alan.

Last year, when things came up like Palin's map and Angle's "Second Amendment solutions" to the potential problem of her losing in Nevada, some people like myself still had the recent death of Dr Tiller by another "lone crazy who took violent rhetoric too literally" on our minds and mentioned that such tactics might not be the best idea. Even Congresswoman Giffords went on record to warn of the potential risk.

At the time, those using the crosshairs maps and suggesting the application of the right to bear arms to remedy election results they might not like dismissed such concerns. "You can't control the crazies" was what we were basically told, and that meant that we were supposed to believe that the risk of a "crazy" shooting a politician would be the same regardless of what they said, so we should just STFU. Those of us who were concerned weren't saying it would remove all risk, but why should we encourage politicians to do something that adds any such risk?

Now the folks who say that a couple of guys next door marrying each other will somehow damage the relationships of husbands and wives throughout their neighborhood are telling us that political leaders making public statements in ads intended to influence people's decisions at the polls could not possibly have any influence on the "crazies" out there who take the gun-related imagery and rhetoric the politicians choose to include in their ads and speeches too literally.

They chose to include the images and terminology.

They chose to ignore those who were concerned because it was "more important" to score points with catchy phrases.

And now they're choosing to ignore the possibility that while they didn't hand this guy the gun or ammo or make arrangements to help him, their words may have filtered into his mind in a way that something not mentioning guns wouldn't have.

Does this justify any suggestion of censorship or adding limits to free speech beyond what's already generally accepted? No. At least I don't think so.

At the same time, HOW DARE some of these folks who ignored the warnings and claim free speech justifies violent rhetoric sit there and tell those of us who see a pattern forming to STFU!

Albert Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." There were concerns about violent rhetoric in the anti-abortion movement leading some "lone crazies" to commit bombings and shootinmgs including the assassination of Dr Tilller. These were mentioned as a parallel to what could happen in the wake of Angle's "Second Amendment solutions" and Palin's crosshairs map and "don't retreat-reload" and now a "lone crazy" has not only shot someone, but ( you expect be to believe just by "coincidence"? ) one of the politicians in the "crosshairs" map. If politicians want to continue the gun rhetoric after this, they're insane for "doing the same thing and expecting a different result" and while I will respect their First Amendment right to do so, I will not vote for any politician who relies on such tactics. The same goes for contributing to the veiwing/listening audience of any pundit who does the same.

And if the First Amendment protects their provocative choice of words, you better damn well respect the fact that it applies to those like myself who criticize those choices.

The fearmongering warnings of "censorship" are BS. It would be fully within the First Amendment with no government intervention necessary for politicians and pundits to choose to stick to the issues instead of relying on gun-related imagery and terminology when not discussing something actually having to do with firearms. The idea is trying something different to get a different result.

Yosho: You are so right! Sanity seems to have slipped out the door in this Country. Things that people never dreamed of doing or saying years ago seem to be the norm....

To those who feel they have to exercise their right to bear arms on their person, wear a gun like in the old west..... they are the ones we all should fear. I personally believe in this great nation of ours, the standing army which ad hears to the President as Commander in Chief, to our police forces throughout the land, to our firemen and other who place their lives on the line each day to protect all of us.... Now, we seem to be moving backward, allowing ignorance to rule the day, to manage the way we think, the way we act. We seem to think that having a gun at our side will protect us, yet can any of us be assured that our draw of the gun will be the fastest, that someone will not come behind us and coldly shoot us in the head as was done????

Intellegent societies use intellegence not macho gun toting goons to assure their safety! Rehtoric when seemed prone to start a fight used to be banned, now no one wants to say perhaps what is being said is harmful, inciteful and if it continues it may cause bloodshed, and in doing so, the person will be held responsible for the words used.

Where have we gone, and where are we going, the thought is fearful?

Beware, Repoblicans, lest you start to resemble those you hate:

http://www.screamingpickle.com/members/SaddamInsane/gallery.htm

Justifying the intentional killing of innocent babies is far more direct encouragement of violence than some cross-hairs printed on Democrat and Republican maps

alan

Justifying the intentional killing of innocent babies is far more direct encouragement of violence than some cross-hairs printed on Democrat and Republican maps

now you are just starting to scare me. dr. tiller worked within the confines of our laws. scott roeder took matters into his own hands because of a different philosophy. on some level, it seems that you are saying that it is okay to shoot those who differ from you. i hope that is not the case. at any rate, dr. tiller did not have much of a national profile, and he was not advertising that he kills babies, as you put it. however, bill o'reilly did post tiller's information and clinic address on his show on many, many occasions. i wonder if he sleeps well.

Colonial82 - Please do not turn this into a debate about abortion.

As you can see, I didn't initiate the subject

I responded to a specific attempt at a moral equivalency argument that contained a glaring contradiction where in one case, taking innocent lives is condemned ,while in the same post it was depicted as acceptable

The post was addressed to me, and I simply highlighted the fundamental internal contradiction in the argument

To be clear, Colonial, I was not intending to discuss abortion. Alan took my mention of Dr. Tiller in another direction to make his own point and ignored the intent of my post.

Tiller was killed by someone who thought that doing so was an acceptable alternative to using the legal political process of this country to make Tiller's professional activities illegal. The shooter made this decision after being exposed to rhetoric that indicated other individuals considered the doctor's untimely death by violence to be just. Whatever your opinions on Tiller's professional activities, they were legal and his assassination, which was not discouraged and in fact was openly expressed as a favorable potential outcome in the minds of those who opposed his professional activities, was not.

Despite assassination of Dr Tiller and the fact that the shooter had been exposed to rhetoric loaded with violent terminology, the 2010 election season saw a lot of similar gun-themed imagery, in at least one case with a candidate specifically stating that "Second Amendment solutions" would be acceptable if the outcome she and her foillowers wanted didn't come to pass, and people who said that such rhetoric was irresponsible and could contribute to a similar event but whose warnings were ignored.

Now, we've had a politician so soon after such rhetoric was used shot by someone who wasn't content to vote against her or work within the lawful political process. Whether he actually was registered, participating member of the GOP, it's hard to see his actions as not fitting the description of applying a "Second Amendment solution" to an election result he didn't approve of.

Violent rhetoric in regards to a legal ( no mater how objectionable some may see it as being ) medical procedure was followed by an illegal violent act, which was followed by gun-related rhetoric as part of political campaigns which has been followed by a violent response by an individual who didn't like election results.

The moral issues of abortion wasn't the subject of my part of the discussion any more than the morality of whatever policies or actions Giffords supported.

Can't help yourself, can you?

; )

AMEN!

hvymt......."My rhetoric finally came back and bit me and I don't wanna take responsibility for behaving like a jackass."

I think Sister Sara/Teaparty let it slip out what their new world order will look like.... Blood Libel

After reading my own post, I believe I may have been over the top a bit...I meant it as sarcasm

I am so offended with Palin's speech...She is just awful.......

Palin is just playing victim again. It seems to be what she does best.

Clint - Here is a more reputable source:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/blood_libel.htm

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-a-brief-history-of-the-phrase-sarah-palin-used-in-h/

It seems odd that who ever wrote Palin's little speech ignores the anti-semitic root of the phrase. Isn't Giffords Jewish? Maybe it's just more of Palin's incendiary rhetoric.

In the National Review Online, blogger Jonah Goldberg questions Palin's and Reynolds' use of the phrase this week. "I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he writes.

Wow, what do you have to do to get Jonah Goldberg questioning your use of a phrase?

Well, at least Clint didn't try to post link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Are you suggesting that Jews should control the use of those words?

Isn't that a little bit irrational and discriminatory?

Well, I've been here over two years and I've just had my first "comment collapsed by the community". It don't really know what that means but I'm impressed.

Welcome to Libland is what it means.

I know I'm in Libland...not sure about the "welcome" part though. :)

Hey they are the prophets of peace and love...ask em they will be more than happy to tell ya. Liberals never say anything hateful or derogatory. Thats a Sarah Palin/Conservative thingy.

I could care less about Palin but the stuff people say against her is scary. They manufacture stuff that doesn't come from happy healthy minds. They seem to be obsessed with her and the product of their obsession is a seriously degraded public discourse.

Hey they are the prophets of peace and love...ask em they will be more than happy to tell ya. Liberals never say anything hateful or derogatory. Thats a Sarah Palin/Conservative thingy.

Oh Liberals are quick learners (You know all that educational stuff that annoys Conservatives.) So they have been watching and learning about the irrational tactics that Conservatives use. Weirdly they have been successful. But then it occured to liberals that presenting rational arguments doesn't work with the irrational people. So they've changed their tactics. I don't like WMD, but the concept of MAD does have merit.

If Sarah can't take it then she shouldn't be dishing it out.

Barack Obama "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".

Also, both the DLC and the DCCC has used targets for "battleground states/districts" in previous electoral cycles. Cut the double-standard.

An Al, the "bullseye" was on the district, not her face.

Stop trying to blame the right wing media because a communist manifesto loving pot-head liberal pyschopath shot a blue-dog democrat and a Republican judge.

Stop trying to blame the right wing media because a communist manifesto loving pot-head liberal pyschopath shot a blue-dog democrat and a Republican judge.

Sarah Palin and others in the Tea Party have suggested violence as a political solution. Do you condone that?

Maybe if Sarah Palin or the Tea Party was relevant to what happened on Saturday, my views on the subject would matter.

Considering there is ABSOLUTELY NO connection between them, attacking Palin is pointless.

Loughner didn't even vote in the 2010 elections. He hates Giffords. Because she answered a question wrong (in his eyes). Palin and the right have nothing to do with this.

And how many time has Obama used violent rheotoric? Keith Olberman? Any one of a number of commentators when talking about Bush, Cheyney, etc.

Don't act like the left is so loving and peaceful. That's BS.

Regardless, let us hypothetically say that a Tea Partier shot a democrat. Does that make all Tea Partiers evil killers?

The answer is no, unless all Muslims are terrorists in your eyes.

Either way, I reiterate my point that Palin and the Tea Party had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Either way, I reiterate my point that Palin and the Tea Party had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

Maybe not, but can you say for sure? Not honestly. You can't go back and look at difference scenarios. An air of violence in the political arena might have been the final catalyst. The question remains. Is Violence an acceptable political solution? It doesn't matter who suggested it. It doesn't matter who is guilty of it. Is it an acceptable political solution? This is the issue every conservative here is trying to avoid. Liberals did it so we can do it? No I am sorry, if liberals did it they were just as wrong. Putting a bulls eyes and suggesting second amendment solutions is taking it up a notch.

So stop trying to excuse inexcusable behavior. Murder is murder and one does not justify another. So I ask again. Is violence an acceptable political solution? Your defense of this says YES and guess what that makes you?

Show me where I said violence is an acceptable politcal solution.

You shouldn't assume things.

Hey, saying they are both wrong is fine with me. I don't think violence is the answer to any political situation.

What I do believe in is equal rights. If the right is going to be attacked, then the left should also be attacked. (Metaphorically).

Are they both wrong, well yeah. But will anything change, no.

Show me where I said violence is an acceptable politcal solution.

You shouldn't assume things

I'm not assuming anything. If you actually said yes then this entire conversation would be over. So now that we have taken that step and you don't agree that Violence is acceptable. Was Sharon Angles statement, the one she made several times, misinterpreted about proposing Second Amendment Solutions? Sarah Palin endorsed her if I am not mistaken.

What I do believe in is equal rights. If the right is going to be attacked, then the left should also be attacked. (Metaphorically).

In all of my posts I have never proposed anything different. When you propose violence as a solution you are not doing it for your party, you are doing it for everyone. This rhetoric on both sides needs to stop. Palins statement didn't do anything to end it only inflame it.

I will agree that Sarah Palin inflames situations. I agree that violent rheotoric needs to stop, on both sides.

This includes Sharon Angle, etc. It also includes Barack Obama. If the leader of the greatest country in the free world is talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight, punishing enemies, etc. That needs to stop.

What I will not refute however, is my position that Jarod Lee Loughner had a personal vendetta against Congresswoman Giffords that dates back to 2007. She answered a question wrong, so he shot her.

While the violent rheotoric is awful, I believe in this sitatuion, it is irrelevant.

I am blaming nobody else in this incident except for the shooter.

Should violent rhetoric stop? Yes

Should federal background checks be more diligent? Yes

Would that have changed what happened Saturday? No

Before you answer yes to the final question, please remember Tim McVeigh and the OK city bombings. I am sure Jared could have created a pipe bomb of sorts and done just as much, if not more damage.

Where there is a will, theres a way....

I am blaming nobody else in this incident except for the shooter.

Well any crime requires intent. That requires a bit of intellectual understanding of the consequences of your actions. I think based on her current statements and past statements its quite evedient she lacks the capacity.

As far as blame, the evidence is still comming in. It's prudent not to jump to a judgement.

Should violent rhetoric stop? Yes

Good, then both parties need come together and put it to an end.

Would that have changed what happened Saturday? No

This statement requires a crystal ball that neither of us have.

Conservatives have been called every vile, inflammatory, sick, twisted, perverted name there is

If you actually believed your transparently dishonest assertions that rhetoric is the cause of violence, none of you would have used any such words

That is, unless you are intentionally encouraging death and destruction

So let's see if we get massive apologies from all these irresponsible and blood hungry liberals now that they claim to have become enlightened about their violent words and imagery

Did the Tea party pull the trigger - no

Did Sarah Palin pull the trigger - no

Did the Tea Party or Sarah Palin do anything to tone down the rhetoric - no - their doing nothing but inflamming emotions because - it sells and they keep "throwing the gas on the fire" because it makes good media.

There are far too many events sponsered by either Palin or the Tea Party with supports carrying signs "Vote with your 2nd ammendment rights", "We came unarmed - this time", "Can't change it at the ballot box, change it at the ammo box", or "don't retreat - reload"

Did this effect the gunman - nobody knows - but it sure didn't help.

Are both sides guilty of the rhetoritc - yes but the right is so far out of control on this - it's very troubling to where it could lead.

Are both sides guilty of the rhetoritc - yes but the right is so far out of control on this - it's very troubling to where it could lead.

And the fact that people are more willing to try to justify it rather than do something about it is even more troubling.

that is what i do not get. we do not know if the rhetoric has much of an effect or not, but why would we take the chance? well, there is no evidence that incendiary talk and rhetoric leads to violence, so i am going to keep it up, and not apologize, even if some people get killed, for it wasn't because of the language. even if the rhetoric is not to blame, it is sort of insensitive to keep spouting off about how you should be able to spew hate and vitriol.

It's never the fault of the Rapist, because you know "She was purty and had it coming"

I love how Liberals own words come back to bite them squarely on the ass!

You are overlooking that fact what Giffords herself has stated about a year ago after she found herself on the "crosshairs" is coming back to haunt Palin now...

One of the tools of the Conservative Lie machine is to present 1/2 facts and photoshopped images and then call the left liars. You have no right to call anyone a liar when your primary media outlet has blatently altered evidence to support their case. A liar calling someone else a liar has no credibility. After what Fox has fabricated and the way Conservativesa have embrased it we have absolutely no reason to believe anything they say.

Spin it anyway you want, lie to me once shame on you lie to me twice shame on me.

taao

Go back and read my comment again, you never fail to amaze me. READ the comment over again.

I made that sentence up. I was stating that she should have said something to that effect, but she did not.

Like you, my friend, and all of those of your ilk, she is narrow minded and confused. She does not know the difference between class and acting out, between style and showing off, between apologizing and showing humility, or between being a patriot and being obnoxious.

I don't hate her, I feel sorry for her.

That was her holding herself blameless?

If she'd actually said that, we would all be much happier people. Philip Grant's point was that she didn't.

I know it's a challenge, but work on your reading comprehension. Maybe also read a transcript of what Palin said. She took no responsibility whatsoever, and spent the bulk of it complaining about how dare people attack her.

That was her holding herself blameless? Oh you mean she didn't hold herself as responsible as the Liberal lie machine would have liked her to.

Forget "as responsible." Can you point out where at any point she accepted any responsibility for her contribution to the hostility in our political climate?

For that matter, can you point out any time where she acknowledged any basis for anyone not seeing her with worshipful eyes? This is the woman who was upset that a crowd of hockey fans were supposedly booing her daughter and gets mad at interviewers for not editing out any and all screw-ups she makes and turn the "interview" into an infomercial promoting her!

A deranged lunatic did this, NOT Sarah Palin. Why should she have to say anything at all? Just another way to bash Palin. Nobody made this lunatic do this except his OWN TWISTED MIND!

her words Smellitcoming, may have affected this guy to move forward with his plans...no one is saying that she forced him to do it...just that her words may have been bad timed and a part of what sent him over the edge to think it ok to kill people.

Why should she have to say anything at all?

If that's how you feel, then why did she say anything at all?

Sad but true, Palin has no obligation to say a word. What she has said is not out of line, and you don't have to like it anyway!

and you don't have to like it anyway!

Nananah boo boo??

1st- Haven't stated one way or another.

2nd- I commented on your statement, not hers.

3rd- You are absolutely correct.

Love all the actual Liberal demonstrations of hate filled rhetoric in these posts. Keep up the great work...oh by the way great job on convincing "yourselves" otherwise! Let me know how that works out for you guys...politically speaking that is.

yes taao we're holding up palin's own rhetoric on the active and happy use of violent words and symbolism in the political arena and calling her and the rest of the right on it.

We are just a bunch of mean ol' bullies.

XD

Liberals,

Stop blaming Sarah Palin and the right-wing media because a communist manifesto loving, pot-smoking, atheist liberal shot a Blue-Dog democrat (who used to be Republican) who he hated because she answered a question not to his liking in 2007, and killed a Republican-appointed judge.

Liberals,

Stop blaming Sarah Palin and the right-wing media because a communist manifesto loving, pot-smoking, atheist liberal shot a Blue-Dog democrat (who used to be Republican) who he hated because she answered a question not to his liking in 2007, and killed a Republican-appointed judge.

SPAM!

wake up

good posting, but the liberals just can't help themselves....they just feel the need blame Sarah Palin.

Also, it's really telling that within a hour after the shooting that the "crosshairs" image was deleted from Palin's site...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmowski/following-giffords-shooti_b_806248.html

SuperSaiya

Huffington can call it being scrubbed...but it is still on the internet. I can't answer why/if it was taken off Palin's site..... Don't even care...there wasn't any violence in that map...no more than the Democrats target sites they have on their map.

BTW...wasn't this rude lady going to get thrown off her plane...she thinks rules are not meant for her. so funny,,,Her rag doesn't mean anything to me.LOL

Wake Up,

So, he MUST be a liberal because he smoked pot and had a copy of the Communist Manifesto...right? WEEEEEEELLLLL, some facts for you:

1. He ALSO owned a copy of Mein Kampf - not exactly "liberal".

2. He ALSO just purchased a Glock 19 - not exactly "liberal".

3. He ALSO purchased a 30 round magazine for said Glock 19 - again, not exactly "liberal".

4. He attempted to join the military and was rejected. - Liberal?

5. He ranted against the government. - Liberal?

6. He talked about money and gold (very Beck-like). - Liberal?

7. He apparently TARGETED this Congresswoman, possibly because of her vote on healthcare. - Liberal?

He doesn't exactly sound like a liberal to me, he sounds like a crazy (and that doesn't mean he's a conservative either). BUT, none of this has anything to do with whether Palin is right. Palin didn't shoot anyone, and maybe her rhetoric inspired him, maybe it didn't, but again, Palin should have acted like an adult and a leader; she didn't. She instead either ignorantly used a phrase that is woefully offensive, or intentionally used "code words" to once again rally the base. Either she's a moron or she's a sicko with additional blood on her hands. Again, a leader and a grown-up would have acted differently than Mrs. Palin....that's what I blame her for. - and if you bothered to read the rest of the posts here, you'd see that WE who blame her for that are not only in the majority, but we are right.

SuperSaiyan,

What is your point?

The DLC and DCCC have used target maps in the past. Look them up. Are we going to argue the difference between a bulleye and crosshairs?

Maybe if someone had used a bow and arrow, it would be the democrats fault??

And the Huffingtonpost is so non-partisan, right?

Oh wait, I remember after Bush was re-elected in 2004 that some liberal put an ad on Craiglists to fight a conservative. Should we blame John Kerry?

ryoushi12
yes taao we're holding up palin's own rhetoric on the active and happy use of violent words and symbolism in the political arena and calling her and the rest of the right on it.
We are just a bunch of mean ol' bullies.
XD

See ryoushi thats just wrong...I don't think you guys are "ol'" at all.

SuperSaiyan,

What is your point?

My point is that once they heard about the shooting and who was shot, they knew that they are going to be in hot water since one of the people on that list was shot...

Webslinger,

Her vote on healthcare?

In 2007????

There was a vote on healthcare in 2007.

You don't know what I am talking about do you. Look it up. He hated her long before the vote on healthcare.

And ok, so he has some non-liberal attributes, coupled with his liberal attributes, and he is somehow a fascist, and an anarchist. WOW, he is really all over the politcal compass.

But his closest friends did say he was left-wing. But I am sure that you know more about him than they do right?

Superdude,

It wasn't a hit list.

Both sides of the aisle use these types of maps.

Get over it.

It wasn't a hit list.

Both sides of the aisle use these types of maps.

Get over it.

Well, that's easy to say until something like what happened on Saturday happens and after that, what then?

Wow.....way to totally miss the point Wake Up, and totally miss important words like "POSSIBLY".

Now, I don't presume to know more about this nut than his "friends" and "classmates", and while I have read numerous posts about their claims of him being "left wing" back in high school, it bears noting that he isn't in high school anymore and the difference between a 17 yr old or an 18 yr old and a 22 yr old can be (and often is) a very, very vast one....none of that really matters.

The POINT remains - Palin should have and could have chosen her words, her timing and her responses better, and in failing to do so, showed how she is NOT a leader and is NOT a responsible person.

Now, you can defend her all you want - that's your right. You can try and label this nutcase all you want, that too is your right (for the record, please note in ALL of my postings and on my seed relating to the shooting, I NEVER labeled this "kid", or attempted to assign him to the TEA Party, the Libertarians, the GOP OR the Democrats), but you simply are ignoring that Palin used extremely poor judgment in her "targets", her "reload" rhetoric and even with this extremely late, extremely senseless, extremely stupid, and extremely offensive response.

I don't know Superman, what then?

How about this?

After an arrest, an investigation ensues to determine motive. If Jared Loughner comes out and says, "I saw her district on a electoral map that was on Sarah Palin's facebook page" I will shove my foot so far down my throat that I will be able to paint my toenails with stomach acid.

But, if it is determined that he was a crazy man who hated Giffords because in 2007 she answered a question that he asked not to his liking, then maybe fueling the fire by attacking any politician or media pundit isn't the answer.

Webby,

I am not defending Sarah Palin. I think she's an idiot, and would not vote for her if she ran for President.

My point is that her dumbass maps and Rush and Glenn Beck's rheotoric have absolutely nothing to do with a crazy man attempting to assasinate a congresswoman that he hated since 2007, when he was about 17 or 18.

He obviously didn't change that drastically in those three/four years. His views on her were only strengthened.

He hated her then, he tried to kill her now.

Oh man guys! This just in! A friend of mine who works for security in a Vegas hotel, said that last night some kids were going around pulling the "Fire Alarms" for fun! They did it not once, not twice, but three times! I once heard Sarah Palin use the word "fire"! (gasps)

webslinger, absolutely correct...my high school friends would describe me as a die hard conservative right winger...but I am not anymore.

After an arrest, an investigation ensues to determine motive. If Jared Loughner comes out and says, "I saw her district on a electoral map that was on Sarah Palin's facebook page" I will shove my foot so far down my throat that I will be able to paint my toenails with stomach acid.

No, you'll say he's a liberal who is lying in order to make Sarah Palin look bad, acting with the approval and support of the Democratic Party, in hopes of working with the Democrats (who must have instructed him to take out an insufficiently liberal Democrat) to avoid a death penalty.

Why should she have to say anything at all?

If that's how you feel, then why did she say anything at all?

A better question is, if that's the way Palin feels, why did she remove the crosshairs map and many of the gun references from her website? If she truly felt it couldn't possibly be related, then shouldn't she have stuck to her principles and kept them in place?

people need to wake up about sarah palin, and KILL any chance she has at becoming president. we must TARGET her political career, and SHOOT down any chance she has of winning. we must CURB STOMP the words, signs, and voices of her supporters. take AIM voters, RELOAD, and FIRE her from politics. we must make a HOLOCAUST of her feeble statements, and have a LYNCHING of her political aspirations, as we send her dreams packing to the proverbial GAS CHAMBER!

tags: satire, sarcasm, snarkiness, feigned racial and prejudiced overtones, and pretty much everything else that would be offensive to anyone. no one should read this, and if you do, then you will probably go blind. oh, and this in no way advocates the use of violence towards any person.

isn't the first amendment grand? yes, we all the the right to free speech. usa! usa! usa!

She doesn't have to appologize. She has the spotlight, so she simply has to say something to bring our country together. She failed and has only introduced more vitriol into the situation. Like I said earlier, this woman with the help of some of her comrads has suggested violence as a political solution. She has not recanted that. How can you defend that?

I don't care about her taking responsibility. There is no way for any of us to know whether or not she contributed to this. The problem is there is a question and the question is valid to ask. In the last election the Tea Party in several different ways suggested violence as a political solution. This is what our soldiers are fighting against! Our biggest war right now and our greatest threat is not from the "communist" It's from terrorist that believe their way is the only way and they will kill anyone who disagrees with them. Sarah Palin is a lost cause; quite frankly any apology from her will be shallow and meaningless.

The real question is will the Tea Party and Republicans/Democrats dump their Radicals and try to get back some civility? Otherwise everything we have fought for is meaningless.

You KNOW you've never heard Palin call for anyone to be assassinated..."you stupid arsehole"!

WTF do you think "second amnendment remedies" means? And Palin endorsed and supported Sharon Angle ...did she not?

Gun play imagery has been part of political debate for decades

Demonstrate where anyone has put their political opponents in the cross hairs of a rifle scope and said "Don't retreat, RELOAD!"

Dawn, please include the exact gun and/or violence methaphor and/or vitriol and/or the violence committed for each of the people you list. Thanks.

Here is mine for conservatives.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Sarah Palis should "personally" apologize AFTER the following individuals and groups "personally" apologize:

12. Getty Images

Huh?

Don't question it douglasq, it's a list undoubtedly produced by some random right wing blog out there somewhere, using some sort of logic alien to us, and reproduced faithfully by someone uninterested in critical thinking.

If you've ever been unfortunate to spend any length of time at Conservapedia, and I am that unfortunate, you see these kind of irrational lunatic lists all the time. Just look at the "Examples" listed under "Video Games and the Spreading of Liberal Values" on their video game industry page.

Personally, I got a kick out of Dawn's inability to spell Palin correctly. Especially with the S located waaaaaay on the other side of the keyboard from both I and N.

If anybody existing within our reality is curious, Getty Images is a standard stock photo company. If they profess any particular political ideology, I am unaware of it.

If anybody existing within our reality is curious, Getty Images is a standard stock photo company. If they profess any particular political ideology, I am unaware of it.

Well, yeah, that's how I know them in my years of working in marketing/PR/graphic design. You can support any agenda you want with their images, left or right, but it depends on who is using their images.

Kind of like the way gun lovers say, don't blame the gun company, blame the person who uses the gun.

Basically Sarah Palin got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and she's crying like a spoiled child about getting caught. The woman says something stupid and incorrect and the media correct her. Her response always is "I AM BEING REPRESSED!" Republicans need to ditch this woman and get a spokesman who is more credible. My God if this woman can't handle the media, how on earth does she think she can handle heads of state?

In the end you don't ask for an apology from someone that catches you in a falsehood.

Palin's the easy "go to person" to blame for just about everything.

In this case she would not be if she hadn't put the crosshairs map on her site or made comments like "don't retreat-reload" part of her PR routine, or taken into account the concerns expressed by people, apparently including the Representative who was shot, last year when they were intitially voiced and removed the map and gun references before 6 people were killed in one of the "crosshairs" states.

If she had actually done so, removed the map in a timely manner when the concerns were mentioned and avoided the gun-related slogans, and this still happened and people were trying to pin some amount of blame on her, I'd be joining you in defending her on this issue.

But she did not. She waited until 6 people were dead and many others wounded, and while the questionable gun references have been removed from the sites, she claims victim status and given no indication that she will avoid repeating the gun-related strategy in the future, or called for things to be toned down in that regard, while the actual victims are dead, wounded, or mourning.

I cannot defend that, and cannot comprehend how anyone else could.

Bill, here's a way not to directly namecall and bring down the wrath of the PC police

you ----- ------ (fill in your own descriptive words or phrase)

That way you haven't said a thing, and their own gutter language will just pop into their heads.

It is the opinion of many that Sarah is a mentally ill woman.

Bubba, The Black Panthers? Really? Joy Behar? Really? Keith Olbermann? Really? Everyone else on that list? Really? The Black Panthers are an extreme group who have no radfio, television or newspaper coverage (it was 2 guys in one tiny neighborhood in Philly), Joy Behar and Keith Olbermann don't use violence and/or gun metaphors and don't lie or misinform.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave Dawn. Please include the exact gun and/or violence methaphor and/or vitriol and/or the violence committed for each of the people she listed. Thanks.

Here is mine for conservatives.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

She has just as much right to express herself as The Black Panthers, Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann or the others listed in #17.

Yeah, nobody knows controversy like stock image company Getty Images...

"Bubba might have a problem with the new big words."

Not at all. We agree, it was good speech. She is a role model for bubbas all over the country. Liberals can't blame everything on Sarah. The majority of voters are not blaming her for the actions of a mentally ill, registered independent who killed both Democrats and Republicans.

I THINK Jeff in Houston was using "Bubba" as a redneck, blue-collar everyman. You know, the type who votes Republican despite it not being in his own best interest because they are merely exploiting his patriotism and religious conviction so they can also get his support for corporate deregulation and eliminating taxes that pays for the things that maintain Bubba's way of life.

Jeff would have to confirm.

"the type who votes Republican despite it not being in his own best interest because they are merely exploiting his patriotism and religious conviction so they can also get his support for corporate deregulation and eliminating taxes that pays for the things that maintain Bubba's way of life."

You're into some heavy analysis there. Eliminating taxes is ALWAYS a good thing. I'm low maintenance. I've had the same job for 25yrs and my trailer is paid for. I had good health insurance until the government jacked around with it. Now it's too expensive to buy.

Eliminating taxes is ALWAYS a good thing

So, Bubba would you propose the elimination of our Military? If you go for a drive do you want to pay $5 every time you use a road? Is Salmonella good in your food, how about lead in the glasses your children drink from? Do you want to have to worry about defending yourself every time you go outside? Do you want to spend the money that would make your trailer bullet proof? These are all things your taxes pay for. Your statement is not rational its dogma.

I had good health insurance until the government jacked around with it. Now it's too expensive to buy.

Were you actually paying attention to health care before the government tried to do something? Our rates were going up by 30% per year. Inflation goes up by 3% per year. Guess what that's called? It's called a bubble, and guess what happens when bubbles pop. In 2000 we lost our retirements; in 2008 we lost our homes, if the health care bubble is allowed to continue we will start losing lives. The problem is that when it comes to health care I agree with some of what McCain said. We cannot control our health care by just regulating insurance companies. We need to deal with the causes. Medical costs, Drug cost, Malpractice insurance and fraud. Health care is off to a bad start, but at least it's a start. It's elimination without real analysis and consideration will lead to its collapse.

Eliminating taxes is ALWAYS a good thing.

The consequences of eliminating taxes are not always a good thing. But you go on pretending you are the only person left on the planet.

"Our rates were going up by 30% per year"

Correct, and Obama promised AFFORDABLE health care for all. It ain't affordable and it ain't for all. Pelosi promised lower health care costs and NO NEW DEBT, pay as you go. Guess what? 5 trillion was added to the deficit while Pelosi was speaker and my health care costs have gone up.

I apologize to the litteral Bubba. I was using a local term used in Texas to refer to certain types of people. My bad. Local slang does not travel too well.

Obviously, Palin did not write those words, she just read them;

The person who did write them probably got the idea of using the phrase "blood libel" from an op/ed that Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds wrote for the WSJ a couple of days ago. I'm not going to link to it, but the title is "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel".

No one assassinates bad people, only the good die young, Sarah Palin will probable live longer than most of us. Unfortunate for the remaining 6.5 billion of us.

Sarah Palin will probable live longer than most of us. Unfortunate for the remaining 6.5 billion of us.

So you are wishing death on Sarah Palin...but accusing her of violence...search your soul.

BTW, No it isn't just the good that die young...I believe the Judge to be a good man and without this killer he may have had more years left to serve his judgeship.

Just another hypocrite statement by the left...they can wish death on someone, but crosshairs on a map of Sarah Palins is wrong...PULEEZE

No, SP just missed the rare moment to make a difference in our world. It's unfortunate she was given the stage.

We lefties are just so bad! You cons are everything that's good about the world.

We lefties are just so bad! You cons are everything that's good about the world.

The problem is that the right always tries to raise it a notch. Guess where that leaves us?

You have got to look up the word hypocrisy.

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religiousbeliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Does this fit?

She's ridiculous, how was the one that used the bulls eyes, lock and load, etc., enough said. Please give me some examples of a "liberal" former Vice-Presidential candidate using the same language. I'm not talking about liberal bloggers but, major politicians. Can't find any can she. If I'm not mistaken the "blood libel" reference refers to the Nazis hatred for the Jews. Where did she get that one, "Mien Kampf".

Where did she get that one, "Mien Kampf".

I wouldn't know, never read the book...I guess you did?

I don't know any former Liberal VP former Presidential Candidates quotes...Of course Biden has made plenty of stupid gaffes, but I also don't know anything that Sarah Palin has said that is wrong either..If she thinks it is wrong I will wait for her to say so.

I also believe that this is a big ado about nothing.

I wouldn't know, never read the book...I guess you did?

Apparently you don't have google available to you. Too bad for Sarah, it might have helped had she done a simple search.

stally

Is google going to read the book for me? Or if I google this book, it will come up "blood libel" I did have to google that...and found out that is an Archaic expression that is a false accusation. So I will wait and find out what the big deal is with this...because I am not going to rely on the "stupid" seed to tell me anything this is just a ANTI-PALIN hate seed.

So you all keep feeding on this and enjoy!!!!

Is google going to read the book for me?

Actually, it will point you to a lot of sources that have.

Since when did calling out the use of an anti-Semitic term "anti-Palin hate seed"?

Oh come on Fair and Balanced is exercising your first amendment rights. Saying Sarah is wrong is hateful.

Since when did calling out the use of an anti-Semitic term "anti-Palin hate seed"?

It's the nature of the Palin Supporter subculture, though not unique to that group.

It's the same mentality that involves use of questions that aren't pre-approved being called "ambush journalism." Anything not promoting the object of worship is considered to be coming from a position of hostility, and even genuinely constructive criticism is rejected as such.

On the bright side, as long as the Palin camp decides to continue rejecting the potential for improvement that could result from actually paying attention to any well-explained criticism, we can take comfort in the fact that she will be honest in her obliviously continuing on her current course as the Paris Hilton of politics.

Colonial

I wish that I could believe that anyone or even you would have commented on this except that it was found on line and you seeded it and people use anything to HATE Palin.

It is a false accusation...so how can I read anything into it. I would never be anti-semitic and I would never believe that Sarah Palin would either...and especially use the term with that in mind knowing that Giffords is Jewish.

I have spent my time on this seed, why? I don't know...because I know I have been on so many of these HATE PALIN fest that I still need to state my views and really it doesn't matter...You all just love to hate Sarah Palin...

It has been an anti-semitic phrase for hundreds of years and trying to use it in a different meaning is not be true to the meaning of the phrase.

She's "taking it back" like the character Randall in Clerks II.

here did she get that one, "Mien Kampf".

I wouldn't know, never read the book...I guess you did?

BB, why would you need to read the book that Adolf Hitler wrote to know that it is anti Jewish hate? Anyone who has studied any history at all knows who wrote the book...yet it is among this guys favorite books and you are doing your damn hardest to defend him and Palin...both seem to have the same opinion of Jews.

Ix chel

.yet it is among this guys favorite books and you are doing your damn hardest to defend him and Palin...both seem to have the same opinion of Jews.

I think I am madder right now than I have ever been in my life...so I am going to need to keep my composer here...

I HATE HITLER...can I shout that...I have seen a lot of films about the Holocaust until I can't watch them any more. GET IT...I would defend HITLER for anything.

Palin has nothing to do with Hitler and his book...you are carrying this way to far now Lx chel.

You think you know it all...every time I have met up with you here on the Vine you have the know it all attitude and think you can judge me...and I dare you to accuse me of such...

The KILLER read the book he is the one you should be talking about...he murdered the Judge that people on the Vine seem to forget about why is it, because he is a Republican Judge?

I think I better stop before I really let you know my thoughts right now...THE guy is a pot smoking, druggie who has fried his brain...and turned into a killer and that is not Sarah Palin's fault nor Fox News nor any conservative Republican or whatever...HE DID IT..and I will never believe that Sarah Palin said this phrase with any bad intentions...You and all the dems I have heard speak today are just reaching.

Colonial82 - Since when did calling out the use of an anti-Semitic term "anti-Palin hate seed"?

Blood Libel is not anti-Semitic... it is a term used by the Jews and others to describe the vicious attacks and incitement to hate and violence intentionally directed against

blood libel is almost completely anti-semitic. it has been co-opted in recent centuries to be used towards other groups and individuals, but the original meaning is as colonial has written. it was propagated that jews killed christian children and used their blood in the making of foodstuffs. how that can be seen as not anti-semitic is beyond me.

My ex-wife is Jewish, and I can assure you that you would be hard pressed to discover some subject, Political, Spiritual, or Religious, that we have not discussed at length over the many years we were married

If you ponder just a little bit for just a moment, it might occur to you that she didn't spring forth from under a cabbage leaf. She actually has hundreds of close blood relatives and involvement in several organizations and political interest groups.

Oddly enough, I myself have encountered more that one Jewish person and engaged in conversations on a variety of subjects over the years

Have a good day yourself

; )