Violent Talk Is Now Under the Cross Hairs
- Print print this page
- Discuss 59 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
The carnage staggers the mind. Twenty people shot. Six dead, including a 9-year-old girl. A U.S. congresswoman in the hospital after being shot in the head.
Within 20 minutes of news of the shootings appearing on the Internet, the Good Americans over at the conservative site Redstate.com were attempting to pin the shootings on Nancy Pelosi and (of course) illegal immigrants, while simultaneously deploring the fact that the “libs” were going to try to “politicize this.”
On the other end of the spectrum, people began pointing out statements from some tea partiers about “Second Amendment remedies” and “watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” and other such promises of violence if they didn’t get their way.
They took note of Sarah Palin’s now-notorious “cross hairs” ad and her exhortation after the health-care vote: “Don’t retreat — reload!” The Palinistas indignantly denied there was anything wrong with this or any connection with the shootings, even as as they scrambled to take the “cross hairs” website down.
So each side is trying to blame the other. The more I learn about this shooter, though, the more it appears he was piling crazy on his plate from the entire buffet line. He goes off about the gold standard like a faithful Ron Paulian, and lists as one of his favorite books one by Ayn Rand, who’s big among tea partiers (Rand Paul is named after her).
But then he also says he’s a fan of “Mein Kampf” AND the Communist Manifesto. He once told a fellow student that he thought abortion was murder, but he also smoked a lot of weed and didn’t believe in God. A friend who was interviewed shortly after the killings compared Loughner to the nihilistic Joker in “The Dark Knight”: “There’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn.”
So there’s no way to draw a bright line link between the violent rhetoric of Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle, or the radio talk show host in Florida who was about to become the chief of staff of a newly elected tea party candidate before a video surfaced of her shouting to a cheering crowd that “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
All that said, the Palinistas and their fellow travelers on the right can spare us the righteous indignation about how awful it is that people are criticizing their violent language.
As writer John Scalzi put it: “If your political messaging traffics in rhetoric heavy on gun imagery and revolution of the overthrow-y sort, then when someone shoots a congressperson who you opposed, then guess what: You get to spend some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight being asked if it’s not reasonable to suspect a connection between your rhetoric and the actions of a shooter targeting someone you’ve opposed.”
If, for example, I put up a website with cross hairs over John Boehner’s name, and Boehner, God forbid, gets shot, then I don’t get to be all indignant if people ask about a connection. The people who quote Barack Obama’s reference to the movie “The Untouchables” (“If they bring a knife to the fight, I bring a gun”) seem to have forgotten one essential difference: No one has actually put a bullet in John Boehner’s head.
The question of whether hateful right-wing rhetoric “caused” Jared Loughner to kill six people and grievously wound 14 others is a separate question as to whether it’s bad for the country to use the language of guns and bullets and shedding “the blood of tyrants” if a vote didn’t go your way.
Sure, you’ve got a right, absent a direct threat, to say any damn fool thing you want. But people also have the right to call you on it. In the words of former Bush speechwriter David Frum: “This talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk.”
If any good thing comes out of this tragedy, it may be that, despite the right wing’s belligerent insistence that “it wasn’t us,” they’ll start thinking twice before blithely deploying rhetoric that hints of bloodshed and killing over things like marginal tax rates.
I don’t think we’ll hear Barack Obama talking about “knives and guns” any time soon. Will Sarah Palin exercise the same restraint? We live in hope.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
None 2 years, 4 months ago
I'm not sure how we can get rid of "hateful rhetoric" except for each of us to choose not to do it and not be drawn into it by those who do (sorry to say, I've been guilty of this on occasion). But the guns, now that's something else. Tonight, "Saturday Night Live" had a piece that just might be the answer to the problem. It's a win - win solution that the pro-gun and anti-gun sides could live with. Gun proponents always point to the 2nd Amendment as the basis for their beliefs that the Founding Fathers wanted us to keep and bear arms. The solution: Allow all guns that were available in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was drawn up. This way, nobody gets their right trampled on and we get EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.
None 2 years, 4 months ago
It's a heck of a thing when the sanest political commentary on TV comes from comedians.
None 2 years, 4 months ago
Jon Stewart peels the spin from biased news reporting (ie Fox). Especially Glenn Becks double speak....
None 2 years, 4 months ago
Stewart's parodies of Beck are hilarious, and spot-on.
None 2 years, 4 months ago
Did you happen to see the baseball bat piece with Beck swinging his bat to effect change? Talking about wing-nuts!
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
I've heard this from gun enthusiasts, just like I've heard criticism of calling Loughner's 30 round magazine a "clip." To these people I say: YOU'RE SOLVING THE WRONG PROBLEM.
OldPilot 2 years, 4 months ago
Reticle, crosshairs, gunsight, ("survey markers" according to failing, flailing Palin) magazine, clip...who gives a hoot? It may be politally correct but it is utterly dishonest to argue that the event in Tuscon had and has no connection to and with graphic targeting advertisments and rhetoric invoking reloading, second amendment solutions, blood of patriots and such trash. The shooter may be a nut but even the nuts among us, and there are plenty, sometimes listen to and are influenced by voices other than those in their heads. Apparently this particular net listened and decided that the rhetoric was correct, found guidance in the advertisments and had no problem whatsoever buying his weapon of choice. Law enforcement hates the fact that high powered semi automatic handguns, assault type weapons and large capacity magazines are available to the public. Who do we have to thank for their availability to every nutcase in the country? Not the founding fathers or the second amendment; try to remember they wrote in the days of muzzle loading muskets and cannon.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
I find it both hypocritical and disrespectful to the dead and their families to continue to attempt linkage of this of the carnage in Arizona to conservatives. It is widely accepted that Jared was mentally ill. To my knowledge their has not been a shred of evidence that this act was motivated by any so called right wing rhetoric. The way to more civilized dialogue will not be paved by vague or not so vague accusations of responsibility for this terrible deed.
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
And yet, you were and are silent on another thread when some nutcase was shrieking that the shooter was a liberal. I know you were there, you posted there, and you never said a word about that.
So once again, spare me your pious hand-wringing over "disrespect for the dead and their families." You don't have any respect for the dead, you're just mad because people aren't giving wingnuts a pass anymore for crazy talk.
And don't try to tell me you want more civil discourse. You just want liberals to be silent when people talk about killing them.
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
I wonder FG - just what do you find hypocritical and disrespectful ?
Please explain!
MikeNC 2 years, 4 months ago
I totally agree with JER. I absolutely refuse to get drawn into hateful rhetoric, from this point on. What was the biggest concern our Founding Fathers had by inserting this ammendment?
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
" a hit dog will hollar", I know it is corny but it seems appropriate. I stand by my carefully worded opinion above
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
You've said and written this so very well. Maybe NOW they'll understand? Probably not but if I may, I'd like to write a little of what Frank Rich wrote in today's NYT:
"Did Loughner see Palin's own most notorious contribution to the rancorous tone, her March 2010 web graphic targeting Congressional Districts? We have no idea-nor does it matter. But Giffords did....The week of that interview she did on MSNBC began with the House passing the Health Care bill on Sunday. Within hours on Monday morning, vandals smashed the front door of Giffords office in Tuscon. The Palin "target" map went up on Tuesday-just one day after that vandalism-timing that was at best tone-deaf and at worst nastily provocative. Not just Giffords, but at least three other of the 20 members of Congress on the Palin map were also hit with vandalism threats." As Rep. Giffords said in that MSNBC interview "Violent rhetoric has consequences." I hope and pray that she survives the consequences that she knew could result from such ugliness. There was also a Rush Limbaugh billboard in Tuscon that said: "STRAIGHT SHOOTER" with the image of bullet holes around that statement. It's since been removed. Unbelievably sick and violent mindedness everywhere. Sad.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
MikeNC, the wording of the 2nd amendment tells us that: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is the reason for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. It was intended, I believe, to help provide "back up" for the fledgling Continental Army of the time. Of course, we still have "militias" today, but for the most part, they are unsavory small bands of para-military individuals hiding out in the woods and plotting the overthrow of local, state or federal governments. The "militia" of the Founding Fathers became, with the Militia Act of 1903, what we know as the National Guard and the current armed services, who do the job today that the militias of the 18th century did. The weapons of today are a far cry from what was available in the 1700's and I believe our country needs to have a serious conversation about weapons and what is appropriate for the general public. I believe if you want the ability to fire off multiple rounds in a split second, join the military and let us tax payers pay for your ammo.
Zoey 2 years, 4 months ago
JER,
Do you "believe" that all of our Constitutional Rights are outdated? It is the mindset of people like "You" that are responsible for the loss of "My" Liberties and Rights. For example, The Patriot Act destroyed your and my 4th Amendment Rights. JER, if you wish to live in Fear, please don't molest my Liberties and Rights, just move to a government controlled society. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year....
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
And a pleasant good morning to you, Zoey. I believe we were talking about the 2nd amendment in this conversation and nothing in my comments suggested that I was advocating your loss of 2nd amendment rights. But just for fun, let's suppose that I lived across the street from you and I exercised my 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms. So I purchase a tank and position it in my front yard and aim the barrel directly at your house. On either side, I position machine gun nests, again aimed directly at your house. At what point has my rights made you "live in fear"? You may also be interested to learn that you already live in a "government controlled society" and you should feel happy you do.
armytrucker 2 years, 4 months ago
First off JER, you can't possess such weapons as they are deemed weapons of mass destruction. Second, you can't point them at a person as that is assault by pointing a gun. To make a point you don't get as ridiculous as you can to make it. Try using a more lucid approach.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
As I stated, the example was presented just for fun. Your reply, however brings up a serious subject and ties into my original posting. The country needs to have a discussion about what is a "weapon of mass destruction" and why would a citizen in the private sector have need for anything that fits that description.
Zoey 2 years, 4 months ago
JER, You don't advocate my loss of 2nd Amendment Rights, but you support the banning of semi-autos, probably handguns all together, and you support arming me with a inferior weapon. Real Nifty Idea.
I don't care to partake in your playful antics or scenarios.
Also, personally, I see our society as a free society. Our founding fathers put the "individual" at the top of society, not some president, dictator, or legislative body.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
Zoey, the banning of certain types of weapons does not violate the 2nd amendment. Refer to armytrucker's reply to my post above. I agree that ours is a free society but it still has to operate under a set of laws. The laws, you may have noticed, are determined and enforced by, wait for it....the government of our country. And as to what I support: I support a country that is operated through the application of the best ideas and not who has the biggest, baddest gun.
Zoey 2 years, 4 months ago
"A country that is operated though the application of best ideas"
Looking at our current situation, can we really accredit our government for what has been best for the country?
Now, you have really outdone yourself, JER....Yes, armytrucker said, a lucid approach, not ludicrous.....I shall act on Old Spook's advice.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
I'm afraid I'm not clairvoyant, Zoey. You'll have to actually say whatever it is that OldSpook advised you on. I only hope it has nothing to do with a gun!!!
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
May I make a small correction that Dusty has now TWICE gotten wrong. Rand Paul did not get his name from Ayn Rand, so if you can quit stating that fallacy it would be appretiated.
Secondly, now that we can address that both sides have been users of violent rhetoric I feel quite confident in my utter apathy toward the entire subject past that point. I maybe out of line but I doubt that such change will even affect such things like the Tuscon shooting. Before this rhetoric, did we not have presidential assassinations? Did we not have vandalism on politicians and their offices before? To me it seems that such changing in rhetoric will not have a change whatsoever in people's attitude and the violent ways whackos express it.
@ Oldpilot The facts are that this guy who killed those innocent people did not listen to either political side and was not influenced by the rhetoric from either side. I think it is best not point fingers as I will not.
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
Thanks for the heads up. I checked it out and you're right. A correction will be in the next column.
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
huntrJ - that is simply YOUR opinion and hardly fact! If it were - we wouldn't be having this discussion!
None 2 years, 4 months ago
hthledger ~ thanks for the info on SUNFLOWER-CABLE. TWC has become cost prohibitive. Looking for a new company.
None 2 years, 4 months ago
DR jr. ~ last evening 60 minutes had a great piece on Loughtner's mental state and the efforts of the secret service to identify dysfunctional psychopaths. In their piece, they contend deranged gunman's motives fail the political test for motive. They are just crazy ~ plain and simple. They alluded to the fact that once SS discovers a potential threat to a public official, they go to the subjects abode and insure they take required medications. Interesting piece.
MikeNC 2 years, 4 months ago
The 2nd ammendment was deliberately put after the first. The thought was, if ever a tyrannical government were to come about and try to overturn democracy, and suppress people's right to voice opposition, people could take to their arms.
There was a ban overturned on 30 clip magazines and I totally agree it should be reinstated. But what is beginning to show through the tragedy, is the lack of so many people, coming together and doing something about a deranged young man. There definitely needs to be more intense screening before a person can own any gun and at the same time, gun shops, gun shows, etc. need to have some protection that they won't be subject to being sued for harrassement or denying rights to some one who they clearly feel is a threat.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned since that fatal weekend, is that Representative Giffords supports the second. She may have second thoughts now, I don't know.
@ Moonchild, the record has been set straight on the bulls eye targets on numerous occassions. Both sides have used them. Both sides I feel will not use this again in the future. The Rush billboard was shot at. It was not an image of bullet holes.Rush had no idea who put it up. No one knows who shot at it. The billboard was taken down AFTER being shot at. Diane
JT 2 years, 4 months ago
@ MikeNC, Although I will grant you that Rush likely had no knowlege of this sign, you have obviously not seen the billboard! The "bullet holes" are way too large to be real and they show the bare metal look that would appear around metal being pierced as in a road sign or car that has been shot, not a painted or covered billboard face. They were intentionally painted and included on this sign.
MikeNC 2 years, 4 months ago
I agree JT with you and stand corrected. I pulled up the billboard. My bad, Diane
babiehop 2 years, 4 months ago
It's very sad that it takes a shockingly tragic event to cause us to reflect on our tone. Politicians have long since forgotten Thumper's mama's addage of: If ya can't say anything nice, don't say nothin' at all. To improve their own dull lustre they feel the need to smear the opponent. Whatever happened to standing on your own merits ? Maybe Palin can find some spare room in the palm of her hand to help herself remember the one that goes something like - it's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
If Palin had just ended her speech after expressing her condolences tot the victims and their families, she would have been fine. But she then proceeded to make it all about her with all that 'blood libel" nonsense. Which is why a recent poll shows only 30% of the people polled approve of her handling of the situation, as opposed to 78% approval for the President. So will she dial it back or double down on the crazy talk? Stay tuned...
POGO2 2 years, 4 months ago
Wow!!! I have been reading these threads for months and have never, until today, posted a comment. I am amazed at the "new civility" in the posts. Even DR has toned down his hate speech and is almost civil.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"Violent Talk Is Now Under The Cross Hairs"
"Under the Crosshairs?", shouldn't it be "in the crosshairs", or maybe "under the microscope"
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. It's always best when everyone adds to the understanding and solutions.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
@ Dusty First off, our President was not being accused of inciting the Tuscon shooting where Palin was. Had he been in her position, I can hardly believe that he would have done any different.
As to your poll there is another that demonstrates the contrary in concern to her video:
http://mediacurves.com/pdf/J8009%20Sarah%20Palin%20on%20Tucson.pdf
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6231526/poll_palin_helped_herself_with_facebook.html?cat=9
And could I have the link to your poll, I didn't see it when I googled.
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1%20Guns%20and%20Discourse.pdf
MikeNC 2 years, 4 months ago
DR States..."If Palin had just ended her speech after expressing her condolences tot the victims and their families, she would have been fine. But she then proceeded to make it all about her with all that 'blood libel" nonsense. Which is why a recent poll shows only 30% of the people polled approve of her handling of the situation, as opposed to 78% approval for the President. So will she dial it back or double down on the crazy talk? Stay tuned..."
It is nice to know that after such a killing spree from a lunatic; you and so many others are keeping score with political tickers and approval ratings of who did best and whom did worse in their speeches. And making side bets as to where the rhetoric will go from here. Most likely hundreds of real family members are devastated right now and it has been made into a political circus right out of the gate after it happened. I'm sure all the news stories covering it this way is reassuring and comforting to family at a time of true need.
And it wouldn't have mattered what Sara Palin had said or didn't say or if she had left a portion of her words out of it....It would NOT have been 'Fine" as you say. Your remarks would have and will in the future focus on whatever she does or doesn't say about anything in a negative way....Because that is the way you and so many are....NEGATIVE human beings. Mike
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
MikeNC - what amazes me is how this poll and many others demonstrate the blind party allegiance in politics.
I'll wager the 30% approval are almost "all" republicans. Too funny!
OldSpook 2 years, 4 months ago
What really amazes me is that 57.3% of all statistics are either a product of misinformation or fallacious information.
greentara13 2 years, 4 months ago
In any case, I hope we as Americans keep the hate speech down; it behooves no one, and sets a very bad example for our children. How do we say we have zero tolerance for bullies in school and then online or in our political ramblings say nasty things about others? I hope we start coming out of our self absorbed world and recognize that others sometime need our help, even if they are "weirdos". What would have one or two phone calls from Loughner's professors changed? Maybe nothing, but then maybe something else than this horrible senseless tragedy.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"In any case, I hope we as Americans keep the hate speech down"
I keep hearing various forms of the above, almost always from posters who seem to slant left. I listen to quite a bit of talk radio on my days off, watch the Fox News channel, even listen to Colmes for a while at night. I cannot remember the last time I heard any of these various hosts say anything that could be construed as hate speech. It seems as if one gives an opinion that is not favorable to Democrats or heaping praise on Obama well then that is hate speech or vitriol. Has the left become that thin skinned? I think not, its just another push to stifle political speech that they do not agree with. The pitiful attempt by many to get traction on this angle by attatching it to the horrific events in Arizona is just plain sick.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
Listening to talk radio and watching Fox News Channel... that's a start. You are half way to being an informed citizen. Now add equal portions of at least two newspapers, PRN,CNN and MSNBC and you will have a much more balanced view of the world we live in. You don't have to believe everything they say but at least be exposed to what they are saying. One thing I can tell you from my own experience: CNN and MSNBC usually don't have all the talking heads trying to interrupt and out shout each other.
dustyrhoades 2 years, 4 months ago
I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating:
"Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.
And yet plenty of people who ought to know better are making just that argument, with a heat that suggests they protest too much."
-George Packer
greentara13 2 years, 4 months ago
I'm talking of every one, whether people are in public, on the radio, in the grocery store. tippy tapping away on the computer. I don't care which way you lean, it's your right, and I don't care to argue about it. However, do not assume which way I might lean.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
@ OldSpook For some reason I'm getting the feeling that you spend your days in a tin foil hat.
OldSpook 2 years, 4 months ago
Here's a hint...look at it with a dry sense of humor. If this is beyond your capabilities, ask someone to explain it to you.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
I still don't get it and I have a dry sense of humor thank you. Perhaps it was not well placed.
OldSpook 2 years, 4 months ago
Then I would have to agree with you that it was not well placed and I beg your pardon. My reference was a follow up on the humourous remark Ross made above and to a discussion of perhaps a year ago whereby percentages and statistics’ could be adulterated to support less than accurate reporting’s.
teufelhunden 2 years, 4 months ago
greentara13-I agree with you on that.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
My point is that "hate speech" is another fallacy of the left. Angrily disaproving of the policies of a party or president is nothing new and is certainly no worse now than it was between 2000-2008.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"You are half way to being an informed citizen."
Wow, half credit for talk radio and Fox News. Thats far higher than expected. What the heck is PRN?
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
That should have been NPR, guess my typing finger got out of control again.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Jared Loughner was not in a CATATONIC STATE nor a padded cell. His mind was taking in "external stimuli" both good and bad; and then he processed it. It was that process that wasn't working right for whatever reasons and many people who could have done something didn't. Many people noticed it, especially those at college. There have been so many shootings and killings in the school environment that it is quite sad that more wasn't done to help him or at least try to stop him from doing something worse than just interrupt the class. His parents also. I had read that the FBI was trying to find out where he got the $1000 to buy the gun and ammo considering he was unemployed. A note was found in his room that said "Die Bitch". He was talking about Rep. Giffords, a CongressWOMAN, and that point has almost been lost in the conversation. He had some "problem" with women. Don't know what but more or less probably something to do with some sort of rejection. A lot of people aren't processing rejection very well these days. Maybe there needs to be a class taught to help people cope better because extreme defensiveness that includes violent hate speech has proliferated further than needs be. Sarah Palin exhibited more of it last night on Hannity(I only saw clips of it this morning)and needs to really get help. She keeps on about the REPUBLIC, gun targets and free speech. NO ONE has said to STOP such speech but just to tone it down. I'm not sure she knows how to simply say "I'm sorry". Language that incites specific acts of violence against specified targets is what the conversation is about. I also saw the 60 Minutes piece about the Secret Service and totally disagree with their belief that Loughner "failed the political test" as a motive. He was following her; she's a Congresswoman NOT a super market manager, a college professor, a movie star, or his parents. This horror did not happen in a vacuum as it looks likes a lot of people are trying to explain it away.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
What are we 10 days or so out from the shootings in Az? It is fairly well accepted as fact that Jared was not motivated by any so called hate speech or vitriol which as we know only or at least primarily comes from the right. No matter what you think of Palin it shows a certain level of looniness to continue to try to associate her with it. Had the left not been so quick to try to tie the Az shooting to the conservatives she would have had no reason to issue the statement that she now draws so much ire for.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
"Mama Grizzley" is the looney NOT ME. She's the one who keeps going on tv trying to "EXPALIN" her remarks away! And only when Jared Loughner or his lawyer/representative/psychiatrist says that he wasn't at all motivated by such hateful speech will I accept that fact.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"Mama Grizzley" is the looney NOT ME.
Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiight.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"And only when Jared Loughner or his lawyer/representative/psychiatrist says that he wasn't at all motivated by such hateful speech will I accept that fact."
I believe you.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
@ MoonChild The woman has nothing to be sorry about! She did nothing wrong that caused this incident and for you to say that you won't believe he's not associated with her until he says it is rather ridiculous. For one, it contradicts your first statement that that he hated women. If he hated them, why would he act on Palin's remarks? Wouldn't he hate her too?
Secondly, I cannot see an easier way for a lawyer to try and shift the hate toward her client to another, than to claim "Palin made him do it". Evidence does not matter to you because you apparently cannot comprehend that physical evidence is more valuable than a testimony. What would a lawyer rather have? An eye witness or the forensic evidence that puts a suspect at the scene of the crime? There is no evidence whatsoever that he even listened to a speech by Palin before in his life.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"There is no evidence whatsoever that he even listened to a speech by Palin before in his life."
MC7 cannot be bothered by trivial details (facts).
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
If Sarah Palin wants a Wild West Show so she can be the next CALAMITY JANE, ANNIE OAKLEY or even BELLE STARR she has my Best Wishes. She is skirting along a line though that has more dire consequences considering her lack of knowledge and her unsettling inability to show a sense of humility. She is just not qualified for any Public Office anymore and As the saying goes, "She's Jumped the Shark". Again, I've said too much so I will end with this. This terrible tragedy in Tuscon was "allegedly" caused by an extremely deranged man. This man apparently(according to a few who knew him)had been "BATHING" himself in violent images and words: Movies, Books, Songs, and Perceptions. Many experts who have studied these types of killers say they have ONE common thread in their personality make-ups in that they have created a "PATH of VIOLENCE". Why is it so difficult to be nice instead of hateful?
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
You see what I mean? My statement DID NOT infer that there was anything at all WRONG with her perhaps wanting to be the next "Cowgirl Extraordinaire". She seems to fit that persona much better than "Presidential Hopeful?" I grew up watching Western TV and movies and I wanted to be Dale Evans really really bad. I admired her for her ability to "Ride right along with the guys" and keep up with them. I also loved her boots and fringed jackets. It is there also that the rough and tumble gun toting jargon works better and has to a higher degree the ability to keep very violent rhetoric from seeping back into political discourse. It doesn't need to be there. I think we can verbally disagree with one another without violent threats.