Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[Controlled Chaos]

Yeah that helps the discussion.

 

I don't agree with BS here, but he's at least trying to make a salient point and defend it.

 

 

He said it's human nature. It's not. It is a political map from 9+ months ago, targeting Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. That's it. That's all. On the map it says, "Let's take back the 20 together! Join me today" On the page with the map it says: We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring…The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.

 

It's not a call to arms. It is all about targeting districts. All politicians use that term. I don't care if the pictures are bulls eyes, targets or cross hairs. To turn around and say that political map, is linked with somebody buying a gun and murdering all these innocent people, is not human nature. To even equate the two is not human nature…it is 100% ludicrous!!

 

It's even worse to place blood on anothers hands without a shred of evidence, but let's be honest here…some people wanted this to be about Palin and the right so bad, it doesn't f***in matter. Just look at how repulsive some of headlines below are. Sick and demented! Deep down in the depths of their black f***in souls, they'd be ok with a few deaths if they could have pinned this on Palin or Beck or Rush or the Tea Party. That's why they're so quick to go there, instead of sorrow. "It was just a matter of time" has been the new battle cry of the left. I saw it on countless, now deleted, tweets, posts and facebook statuses this week. The left just can't wait to lay blame...damn the evidence or consequences. Damn the apologies after proven wrong time and time again.

 

3 Pittsburgh cops gunned down. - "It was just a matter of time"

13 murdered at immigration center. - "It was just a matter of time"

Security guard gunned down at Holocaust museum. - "It was just a matter of time"

Democratic headquarters in Denver windows smashed - "It was just a matter of time"

Census worker found dead - "It was just a matter of time"

Professor guns down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville - "It was just a matter of time"

Pilot flys small plane into IRS building - "It was just a matter of time"

Firebombing at a democratic congressman’s St. Louis office - "It was just a matter of time"

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot. - "It was just a matter of time"

 

Truly sad!

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...ffordsdeath.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...dsarahpalin.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...pazshooting.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...fondatweets.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...ordshooting.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...1/joanwalsh.jpg

 

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/up...ichealdaly1.jpg

 

Edited January 14, 2011 by Controlled Chaos

[StrangeSox]

He said it's human nature. It's not. It is a political map from 9+ months ago, targeting Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. That's it. That's all. On the map it says, "Let's take back the 20 together! Join me today" On the page with the map it says: We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring…The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.

 

It's not a call to arms. It is all about targeting districts. All politicians use that term. I don't care if the pictures are bulls eyes, targets or cross hairs. To turn around and say that political map, is linked with somebody buying a gun and murdering all these innocent people, is not human nature. To even equate the two is not human nature…it is 100% ludicrous!!

 

But, aside from some initial overreaction by some and maybe some hyper-partisans not present here, who's making that causal link?

 

It wasn't just a single map by Palin. It was the "RELOAD!", "2nd Amendment Solution!" etc. rhetoric. "We came unarmed...THIS TIME!" crap at rallies. Giffords specifically asking some to tone down the rhetoric because she feared violent reactions. It wasn't just a single map by Palin with a common-but-maybe-still-bad "targetting" or "in our crosshairs" message. That would be enough to say "hey, maybe that's a bad idea" and drop it. But it's the combination of all of the violent rhetoric seen from some on the right, from grassroots organizers to political candidates and de facto movement spokesmen. Even then, you could argue that some are using this as an opportunity to discredit rhetoric not directly related to what happened, and to an extent you'd be right.

 

But that's not what's happening. Palin and others have become hyper-defensive of their statements and images, refusing to even make a small concession and instead painting themselves as huge victims.

 

 

[iamshack]

<!--quoteo(post=2314060:date=Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:06 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->

<!--quotec-->Yeah that helps the discussion.

 

I don't agree with BS here, but he's at least trying to make a salient point and defend it.

He said it's human nature. It's not. It is a political map from 9+ months ago, targeting Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. That's it. That's all. On the map it says, "Let's take back the 20 together! Join me today" On the page with the map it says: We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring…The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.

 

It's not a call to arms. It is all about targeting districts. All politicians use that term. I don't care if the pictures are bulls eyes, targets or cross hairs. To turn around and say that political map, is linked with somebody buying a gun and murdering all these innocent people, is not human nature. To even equate the two is not human nature…it is 100% ludicrous!!

 

It's even worse to place blood on anothers hands without a shred of evidence, but let's be honest here…some people wanted this to be about Palin and the right so bad, it doesn't f***in matter. Just look at how repulsive some of headlines below are. Sick and demented! Deep down in the depths of their black f***in souls, they'd be ok with a few deaths if they could have pinned this on Palin or Beck or Rush or the Tea Party. That's why they're so quick to go there, instead of sorrow. "It was just a matter of time" has been the new battle cry of the left. I saw it on countless, now deleted, tweets, posts and facebook statuses this week. The left just can't wait to lay blame...damn the evidence or consequences. Damn the apologies after proven wrong time and time again.

 

3 Pittsburgh cops gunned down. - "It was just a matter of time"

13 murdered at immigration center. - "It was just a matter of time"

Security guard gunned down at Holocaust museum. - "It was just a matter of time"

Democratic headquarters in Denver windows smashed - "It was just a matter of time"

Census worker found dead - "It was just a matter of time"

Professor guns down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville - "It was just a matter of time"

Pilot flys small plane into IRS building - "It was just a matter of time"

Firebombing at a democratic congressman’s St. Louis office - "It was just a matter of time"

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot. - "It was just a matter of time"

 

Truly sad!

I agree with this 100%. But this is happening on both sides. Just as sickening as the liberals connecting some imaginary dots here that are all a matter of a sad coincidence, the incredulous outrage from the right is just as sickening to me.

 

The right should just refuse to even dignify these attacks with a response, other than to simply point out how ridiculous it is. Instead, they've gone just as far as the left, with their fake outrage, for fear of losing face here.

 

Sad, sick, pathetic.

[Jenksismyhero]

But it makes no sense. It's not a stereotype or any sort of generalization. It's looking at a map by Palin with Giffords name in crosshairs and Giffords being shot in the head.

 

You can argue against his conclusions here, but your lame attack on liberals caring about minorities doesn't make any sense.

 

Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part?

 

Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype.

 

[iamshack]

Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part?

 

Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype.

And that is also part of the problem.

 

One party's behavior is justified based on the wrong behavior of the other in the past or on another issue. And it just keeps spiraling downward as one manages to just barely one-up the level of deceit in the past instance, and the cycle continues.

 

It's always "You guys" did this, therefore, this evil and deceitful thing we are doing now, is justified.

 

Why can't someone just do what is right and honorable, for the sake of it being so, ever?

[StrangeSox]

Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part?

 

Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype.

 

Go back to page 1 of this thread and start looking for my first post. Ironically you are stereotyping me based on the general reaction from partisan Democrats on the issue.

 

But, really, I was just point out that it was a bad analogy because it doesn't make much sense. We're not talking about a large group of people and assigning characteristics to individuals based on the group but individuals and their actions.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree with this 100%. But this is happening on both sides. Just as sickening as the liberals connecting some imaginary dots here that are all a matter of a sad coincidence, the incredulous outrage from the right is just as sickening to me.

 

The right should just refuse to even dignify these attacks with a response, other than to simply point out how ridiculous it is. Instead, they've gone just as far as the left, with their fake outrage, for fear of losing face here.

 

Sad, sick, pathetic.

 

So just sit back and be attacked and called nasty things? I have no doubt there's politicizing on both sides. But I think it's unfair to say it's equally as bad. There was 2 days of backlash against basically one person over this, without any evidence that she was linked in anyway. It started mere minutes after the attack for no other reason than to s*** on her and eventually the Repubs even more. I guess point me to some none-Rush/Beck talking head who is playing a huge victim card or going over the top about this. The majority of it is on one side. I don't think it's fake outrage, I think it's legitimate outrage for being fingered as the cause of this.

[southsider2k5]

There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything."

 

That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith.

 

If it is all about violent and hateful imagery potentially causing people to do crazy things, it isn't in bad faith at all. It actually happened. People are dead at the Discovery Channel HQ because of the words and imagery used by the environmental left.

 

And lets not pretend the accusations started once the crosshairs and crap where known about. The accusations started as soon as people heard about the shootings, with zero knowledge of the situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

And that is also part of the problem.

 

One party's behavior is justified based on the wrong behavior of the other in the past or on another issue. And it just keeps spiraling downward as one manages to just barely one-up the level of deceit in the past instance, and the cycle continues.

 

It's always "You guys" did this, therefore, this evil and deceitful thing we are doing now, is justified.

 

Why can't someone just do what is right and honorable, for the sake of it being so, ever?

 

I get the point, but in this case I'm specifically calling out the dems for not doing what they typically do, which is to cry about how people rush to improper conclusions without knowing any of the facts.

[StrangeSox]

If it is all about violent and hateful imagery potentially causing people to do crazy things, it isn't in bad faith at all. It actually happened. People are dead at the Discovery Channel HQ because of the words and imagery used by the environmental left.

 

No, it's still a terrible comparison. Al Gore wasn't calling for environmentalists to arm themselves and reload and painting targets on Discovery. It was a movie to raise awareness of the consequences of action/inaction. It wasn't political rhetoric draped in guns and combat.

 

And lets not pretend the accusations started once the crosshairs and crap where known about. The accusations started as soon as people heard about the shootings, with zero knowledge of the situation.

 

The crosshairs were known months before. That was the first thing in my mind when I heard Giffords was shot.

[Jenksismyhero]

Go back to page 1 of this thread and start looking for my first post. Ironically you are stereotyping me based on the general reaction from partisan Democrats on the issue.

 

But, really, I was just point out that it was a bad analogy because it doesn't make much sense. We're not talking about a large group of people and assigning characteristics to individuals based on the group but individuals and their actions.

 

I don't think I've ever pointed out YOU specifically. I've always talked about those people who rushed to conclusions without knowing any of the details.

 

[StrangeSox]

I get the point, but in this case I'm specifically calling out the dems for not doing what they typically do, which is to cry about how people rush to improper conclusions without knowing any of the facts.

 

You're stereotyping all dems in this very post.

[southsider2k5]

No, it's still a terrible comparison. Al Gore wasn't calling for environmentalists to arm themselves and reload and painting targets on Discovery. It was a movie to raise awareness of the consequences of action/inaction. It wasn't political rhetoric draped in guns and combat.

 

 

 

The crosshairs were known months before. That was the first thing in my mind when I heard Giffords was shot.

 

It is all contexted in the potential deaths of millions to billions of people. How is that not the same? The message is clearly if you don't act you will cause people to die. How is that not violent rhetoric to tell people they will be responsible for the deaths of practically everyone if no action is taken? Even if guns aren't involved, it is still the same idea. People will die.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're stereotyping all dems in this very post.

 

I intended to do so. That's your guys' M.O., but apparently not when it involves a hated republican.

[StrangeSox]

<_>

 

Anyway, here's another post from the same guy I cribbed my first response in this thread from that I pretty much agree with again:

 

But seriously, this "Loughner shot people because of conservative rhetoric" crap is like the people who claimed that the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine because of The Matrix and violent video games, or that various kids in the 80s killed each other because they were listening to Slayer or Metallica or Iron Maiden or whatever.

 

After these sorts of tragedies, people ubiquitously search for some sort of social ill they can blame it on, especially a social ill that serves as a hotbutton issue for partisan politics. The truth is that people do some f***ed up s*** sometimes. And I think this largely is understood by Americans on a fundamental level. We're not acting like these sorts of attacks (and this even includes the 9/11 attacks) are a threat to our way of life on a day-to-day basis. We're acting like a gated community that feels embarrassed that someone peed in the community pool and we have to make sure it never happens again or else property values might drop, and we're using this as an opportunity to get in a few points against that guy a few houses down who, in stead of handing out candy on Halloween, gave our kids a lecture about how Halloween is the work of the devil.

 

edit: for what it's worth, the above post was by a typically liberal person but was directed at hyper-partisan dems/liberals who want to make this about right wingers.

Edited January 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

The sad part is that even after a tragedy no one wants to have a civil discussion on whether or not violent rhetoric is a problem.

 

Who cares whether or not it was connected to this incident, the question is:

 

Is violent rhetoric necessary?

 

And this question should be answered by both parties. Unfortunately all people want to do is play the "gotcha" game instead of actually making a change and trying to make the US a better place.

 

So if you dont think its natural that people are going to want to have a conversation about violent rhetoric, after a violent act, than you need to GMFAB. Itd be like saying that after 9/11 it isnt natural to talk about terrorism.

 

Its a violent act, the target of which was a politician. If you do not see the connection between an assassination attempt and thinking about violent rhetoric, then there is nothing more to say.

 

Certainly people have taken it to far, people have jumped to conclusions, and that is wrong.

 

But nothing is going to every be accomplished if both sides keep digging into their position and are absolutely unwilling to try and have civil discourse.

 

The saddest part is the idea that this is either a left or right phenomenon instead of the truth, both sides use whatever they can for political gain.

 

How many here really think violent rhetoric is necessary in the US?

 

Do we really need to be suggesting to citizens that they should come to public places with guns as a show of force?

 

Here are articles about an Arizona rally from 2009, it shows that this was a concern. That allowing people to openly carry assault rifles to rallys was a concern.

 

http://www.examiner.com/religion-culture-i...litical-rallies

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/po...cs-white_house/

 

Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented. Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people.

 

I understand your right to protect yourself, but do you really need an ak-47 at a public rally where there are going to be police? Is it really like to protect you? Or has it started to get to the point where you are actually endangering other peoples safety. Because even if you had to protect yourself with an ak-47, in an environment with a large amount of people it is very likely an innocent will get hurt.

 

How are these not discussions that we should be having?

 

Unfortunately for Republicans or the right or whatever label you want to give them, they were the most openly supportive about bringing weapons to rallies. A person did and it ended horrifically, you are going to get some blowback.

 

Just like I would expect that had Democrats prior to 9/11 been saying that they should allow more box cutters on planes to get blow back.

 

What you say has consequences.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented.

 

I'd just like to point out that I strongly disagree with that. I do not think Loughner was driven, in any way, by Palin or anyone else remotely mainstream to do this.

[Soxbadger]

Thats not the point Im making.

 

Im saying Loughner saw how easy it was to bring a gun to rally and get away with the crime.

 

{edit}

 

Had AZ changed the law and said guns at political rallies were illegal, maybe a police officer/etc may have identified him earlier and stopped him.

 

Its impossible to say, but under the current AZ laws they could not do anything until Loughner actually started shooting people.

 

Im not sure how that isnt a problem.

 

{edit 2}

 

Actually the problem is you parsed the full quote, which explains the statement:

 

Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented. Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people.

 

Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people.

 

I added emphasis to the bolded part, because if you misquote or parse some one your almost always going to make them look stupid

 

Edited January 14, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

I think Ezra Klein sums it up nicely here (emphasis mine):

 

I'll stand with Jon Chait and, oddly enough, Sarah Palin on this one: Palin is right to feel aggrieved. As Chait says, many have blamed her for a killing rampage that she had nothing to do with. A lot of Palin's rhetoric is over the top, and her gun metaphors ("RELOAD!") and her target sights looked unsettling in light of subsequent events, but those subsequent events were not her fault. Too many were too quick to imply she had a significant role in them.

 

Moreover, I just don't care if Palin thought "blood libel" was a vivid way of saying "nasty smear" instead of a description of the once-common anti-Semitic trope that Jews murder Christian children because their blood is needed to bake matzoh. I'm Jewish, so I know the term well. But I imagine the history of it is more obscure to those who didn't attend Hebrew school. This is not worth the headlines it's been getting.

 

What is remarkable to me, however, is Palin's ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Palin didn't ask to be part of this story. But she did choose how to respond to it. Imagine if Palin had come out and said, "My initial response was to defend the fact that I had never condoned such violence, and never would. But the fact is, if I in any way contributed to an unhealthy political climate, I have to be more careful and deliberate in my public language rather than merely sharpen my defenses." That would've been leadership: It would have made her critics look small, and it would've made her look big. Those who doubted whether Palin could rise to an occasion that called for more than sharp partisanship would've been silenced.

 

Of course, Palin didn't say that. Al Sharpton did (or at least he said something very close). Palin accused her opponents of propagating a "blood libel." Rather than admitting that we all sometimes go too far, and that we must constantly work to see the humanity in others and tamp down on the dangerous certainty we have in ourselves, she lashed out at her critics, mocked the idea that political rhetoric was ever "less heated" and noted that there was a time when politicians settled disputes through duels.

So that's Palin's substantive response: Politics has never been reliably civil, her critics are unfair to her and at least she's not shot anybody. All that is true. But you won't find "stop bothering me, this tragedy isn't my fault" in the chapter headings of any books on leadership. Palin could've taken this opportunity to look very big, and instead she now looks very small. And that's not the fault of her detractors or her map. It's her fault, and her fault alone.

Edited January 14, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

The sad part is that even after a tragedy no one wants to have a civil discussion on whether or not violent rhetoric is a problem.

 

Who cares whether or not it was connected to this incident, the question is:

 

Is violent rhetoric necessary?

 

And this question should be answered by both parties. Unfortunately all people want to do is play the "gotcha" game instead of actually making a change and trying to make the US a better place.

 

So if you dont think its natural that people are going to want to have a conversation about violent rhetoric, after a violent act, than you need to GMFAB. Itd be like saying that after 9/11 it isnt natural to talk about terrorism.

 

Its a violent act, the target of which was a politician. If you do not see the connection between an assassination attempt and thinking about violent rhetoric, then there is nothing more to say.

 

Certainly people have taken it to far, people have jumped to conclusions, and that is wrong.

 

But nothing is going to every be accomplished if both sides keep digging into their position and are absolutely unwilling to try and have civil discourse.

 

The saddest part is the idea that this is either a left or right phenomenon instead of the truth, both sides use whatever they can for political gain.

 

How many here really think violent rhetoric is necessary in the US?

 

Do we really need to be suggesting to citizens that they should come to public places with guns as a show of force?

 

Here are articles about an Arizona rally from 2009, it shows that this was a concern. That allowing people to openly carry assault rifles to rallys was a concern.

 

http://www.examiner.com/religion-culture-i...litical-rallies

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/po...cs-white_house/

 

Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented. Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people.

 

I understand your right to protect yourself, but do you really need an ak-47 at a public rally where there are going to be police? Is it really like to protect you? Or has it started to get to the point where you are actually endangering other peoples safety. Because even if you had to protect yourself with an ak-47, in an environment with a large amount of people it is very likely an innocent will get hurt.

 

How are these not discussions that we should be having?

 

Unfortunately for Republicans or the right or whatever label you want to give them, they were the most openly supportive about bringing weapons to rallies. A person did and it ended horrifically, you are going to get some blowback.

 

Just like I would expect that had Democrats prior to 9/11 been saying that they should allow more box cutters on planes to get blow back.

 

What you say has consequences.

 

It does matter whether it was connected because we have moronic politicians who want to be caught in the public wave of outrage over this incident to change law.

[StrangeSox]

Thats not the point Im making.

 

Im saying Loughner saw how easy it was to bring a gun to rally and get away with the crime.

 

{edit}

 

Had AZ changed the law and said guns at political rallies were illegal, maybe a police officer/etc may have identified him earlier and stopped him.

 

Its impossible to say, but under the current AZ laws they could not do anything until Loughner actually started shooting people.

 

Im not sure how that isnt a problem.

 

{edit 2}

 

Actually the problem is you parsed the full quote, which explains the statement:

 

 

 

Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people.

 

I added emphasis to the bolded part, because if you misquote or parse some one your almost always going to make them look stupid

 

None of that would have prevented him from walking into a grocery store with a handgun in a coat pocket, though. All of these laws various Congressmen are proposing now (1000 ft no-guns zones, concealed carry, bullet-proof House Chamber) wouldn't actually do anything to prevent the same crime from happening. The only way to have prevented this crime was to properly identify, diagnose and treat Loughner's illness ahead of time.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think Ezra Klein sums it up nicely here (emphasis mine):

 

Yep, because being targeted as a cause of this tragedy minutes after it happened is the same as nobodies (Sharpton, Olbermann) apologizing for rhetoric they used in the past ONLY TO MAKE THE POINT that people who used that rhetoric without apology are awful.

 

[BigSqwert]

Yep, because being targeted as a cause of this tragedy minutes after it happened is the same as nobodies (Sharpton, Olbermann) apologizing for rhetoric they used in the past ONLY TO MAKE THE POINT that people who used that rhetoric without apology are awful.

Are you that blind that you don't see why so many people saw a connection and brought Palin's name into the discussion? This didn't come from thin air. Congresswoman Giffords literally asked Palin to take the target down. The sniper target with Gifford's name on it. You REALLY can't see why Palin's name was brought up after all of this?

Edited January 14, 2011 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

I think he has a valid point that Olbermann's apologize was almost certainly done to draw attention to Palin's lack of apology and defensiveness.

[BigSqwert]

I think he has a valid point that Olbermann's apologize was almost certainly done to draw attention to Palin's lack of apology and defensiveness.

So by being more defensive she comes out the victor in all of this?