nobody thinks he was a religious palinite. we do think, however, that what she did may have had something to do with it. and so does she, hence her taking the stuff down.
No, she thinks that people like you will make baseless accusations that she had something to do with it and took steps to protect her self from you.
Also, what do animals have to do with anything? You clearly stated conservatives are more likely kill people.
I did not.
Well, I’ve only read the first page or so, but it seems the argument is still going on.
I doubt Sarah Palin DIRECTLY influenced the shooter to attack Gifford. I find it pretty unlikely he saw that poster and followed it’s orders. When he goes on trial we can figure that out. However Sarah Palin’s use of shoot em’ up rhetoric does spawn hate for Liberals and is completely tasteless.
Both sides generally have one of the two exaggerated positions as somonerandom said. The Republicans have socialism, which is designed to appeal to the less intelligent and ignorant who don’t even know what socialism is. The Democrats have oligarchy which is designed to appeal to the middle class, who don’t have money but are educated and/or smart enough to even know what oligarchy means. The Republicans’ view is silly in that it isn’t really true AND that it assumes socialism is a terrible thing without explaining why. The Democrats’ view is much more grounded in reality in that money is power, so, understandably, the few people with lots of money have lots of power. There is also a massive difference in delivery. Republicans usually say “blah blah blah is a socialist.” Decmocrats usually say “I will do this this this and this to change things.” They are two different sides of the coin; Democrats win votes by offering change, Republicans win votes by threatening disaster if anyone votes for their opponent. The Democratic veiwpoint promotes political involvement and changing things for the better, the Republican viewpoint promotes hate.
And finally, isn’t the important debate here gun control? Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that shizios are allowed to buy guns?
Wall of text, if you don’t want to read it go to the bottom it’s the most important point.
- Palin posts a map of the US with crosshairs over districts she disagrees with, along with the words “it’s time to take a stand”.
- Palin makes a twitter post that says “don’t retreat–reload!”
- one of the senators in a district Palin disagrees with gets shot in the fucking head.
what are you not getting here, someonerandm?
The idea that its somehow related to her. The man who did it clearly has no allegiances to the republican party at this point or Palin. It was the act of a maniac with an agenda of his own.
The dude was sick in the head, obviously. As the AmazingAtheist pointed out, chances were he didn’t follow Palin, he might’ve even hated her, but something about her rhetoric clicked in his brain and made him think this was a good idea.
The fringe right-wingers of this country have this habit of saying extremely violent things in their anger, and alluding to assassination and violent revolt constantly. Sick people latch on to things like this. The whole point of all of this is that maybe they should calm the fuck down so this doesn’t happen again.
I mean, she pretty much told people to kill these senators. Of course she can’t use those words exactly, and she may not even want them dead necessarily, but she used their assassination as a metaphor, and someone took it literal.
So much finger pointing it is hilarious. The guy is a loon. Period. No one wispered in his ear other than his own 12 multiple personalities.
No, she didn’t. Have you ever considered how much violent imagery factors into politics without you considering them? To run for office you run a “campaign”. You are said to be “targeting” your opposition. The imagery of war is all over politics, and the selections you use are either out of context or just falling in with that, especially the map. To say that Palin in anyway provoked this man is pure idiocy. There is no evidence of a connection, no evidence of influence. If you get some, then fine, you have a point, but if all you’ve got is speculation in the face of facts, you’ve lost before you even open your mouth.
Yep, “targeting” swing states to focus voter turnout sure is violent rhetoric LOL.
That being said this guy was probably an infowarrior/libertard as per his youtube videos about the gold standard and government mind control, and those people have almost nothing to do with local or national politics unless Ron Paul is involved. So no, Palin isn’t relevant to the issue.
using words like “campaign” and “target” is not the same as telling America “don’t retreat–reload!”
reload? seriously? what the fuck does that mean outside of reloading a gun?
I mean, the lady shoots polar bears from helicopters. She’s obviously crazy.
Not crazy in my book. Just stupid in not realizing how politics and wording works down here in the ‘real’ states. 
I suspect don’t retreat, reload is about 2nd amendment rights, so give that a rest.
You’re right. I’ll go get my SKS and kill some conservative politicians. Thanks for the help.
So, you think there should be a 2nd amendment remedy?
How is that relevant to my post?
Then what does “don’t retreat – reload” mean, to you?
Does anyone else here care that schizios can legally purchase guns??
Article on gun rights for the mentally ill.
Also, an experts opinion on whether or not the homocide was encouraged by heated political rhetoric.
"We’ve heard a lot of debate about how heated political rhetoric might have led to this. What do you think about that?
I think it’s a red herring. We have seen these kinds of things in periods with relative peace in the political environment, we’ve seen it in turbulent times. I think it’s unrelated, frankly.
The only reason we’re talking about this today is that he killed six people rather than one person and that one of the people he shot is a congresswoman. These are not uncommon events. People like this man, with likely untreated schizophrenia, are responsible for about 10 percent of the homicides in the United States. That means about 1,600 homicides a year."
really? when was that?
you’ve got to be really, really careful when restricting gun sales to people with mental disorders. especially seeing as schizophrenia can manifest itself in a lot of different ways and with varying degrees of severity. not all “schizos” are insane people that go off shooting everyone the second they get their hands on a gun, and people being diagnosed with something they have no control over doesn’t warrant having their rights taken away.
people with mental disorders are already stigmatized enough without your help, thanks.
not to mention, when you start taking rights from “schizos” (ugh, btw), how long is it before people with aspd can’t get a gun? how long is it before people with borderline can’t get a gun? how long until people with depression can’t get a gun?