awepittance Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i mean as much as i'd LIKE to think this was the first 'tea party' assassination, it's just not the case at all. I was even kind of ticked off at Democracy Now trying to frame it this way for the entire show last morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 the subliminal message has been firmly sent out amongst the masses.....people will equate this with the tea party thanks to Sarah P's love for hunting and the crosshair filled map, this has probably already been addressed in the thread....I don't think there is a direct connection either though, just synchronicity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest couch Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 so after the dust has all settled, can anyone really say that this kid was influenced by Sarah Palin or the tea party movement specifically? because it doesn't seem to be the case anymore, or maybe someone will have something to say about that. It never was the case. The media needed a scapegoat. Something/somebody so they can play the blame game and further any ulterior political motives they have. It will not do anything other than give ignorant viewers a false sense of security. And inflate the ego of the people pointing fingers. This dude would have snapped sooner or later. I'm all for the Palin hate. It just shouldn't have taken something like this for people to do something about her implications with the gun/shooting/reloading rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i'm definitely with you on that. i think for a political party who has a pretty defensive stance on gun rights, it's somewhat more understandable to expect tea partiers to do something like that, but the evidence really frames loughner as somebody with some sort of mental illness. granted, fuck sarah palin, but to say blood is on her hands is pretty extreme, especially when so many politicians have used language indicative of going on the offensive, physically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dirty Protest Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 But you got to enjoy the irony of the right wing being blamed for the actions of a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 idk, just because he wasn't a fan of hers doesn't mean she has nothing to do with it. i can't say i've seen anything like Palin's targeting (and the implication that goes along with it - which would be .. killing candidates) in politics from any country. he could've passively seen Palin's chart and gotten ideas. it's like, the nation collectively and subconsciously realized the connection to Palin's targeting stuff, but then collectively became self-aware and had to stop it. i think it speaks volumes that she came up in conversation immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Regardless of whether or not there may be a direct connection between the shootings and Sarah Palin, I don't think it is generally a good idea for political leaders to stir up excitement by using violent/aggressive imagery. I believe that, at the end of the day, these people should act as responsible, positive role models to the population at large. Sarah Palin knows that her rhetoric was deplorable. If this wasn't the case then she/her team wouldn't be deleting all kinds of tweets and web-posts. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 yea, exactly. idk how someone like her could be comfortable with herself at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 idk, just because he wasn't a fan of hers doesn't mean she has nothing to do with it. i can't say i've seen anything like Palin's targeting (and the implication that goes along with it - which would be .. killing candidates) in politics from any country. he could've passively seen Palin's chart and gotten ideas. it's like, the nation collectively and subconsciously realized the connection to Palin's targeting stuff, but then collectively became self-aware and had to stop it. i think it speaks volumes that she came up in conversation immediately. eh not really. key word is passively...if anything, i'd agree moreso with jefferoo in that: Regardless of whether or not there may be a direct connection between the shootings and Sarah Palin, I don't think it is generally a good idea for political leaders to stir up excitement by using violent/aggressive imagery. I believe that, at the end of the day, these people should act as responsible, positive role models to the population at large. yes! i think sarah palin is just a prime example of a problem whose side effects are normally rarely seen or less severe. Sarah Palin knows that her rhetoric was deplorable. If this wasn't the case then she/her team wouldn't be deleting all kinds of tweets and web-posts. Just saying. but come on, you know that's not true. her team is deleting tweets and web-posts because it LOOKS deplorable, not because they necessarily think it IS deplorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood me—i think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 IMO, it doesn't really matter whether there's a direct link or not. What matters, is that it's way too easy to imply a connection between the shooting and SP's crosshairs. Sp, and the fear mongering media for that matter, should have realized beforehand that random shit (from their point of view) like this can happen and that connections to their way of portraying things will be made soon after. SP should have foreseen she'd be a sitting duck if a shooting like this would ever happen. Ironically of course, Gifford warned her for it. Even if a link cannot be proven, SP should be mature enough to take responsibility for her "lack of strategy" and wisen-up fast. If possible. Which is very doubtful, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood me—i think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. i never said she caused it! Good god,, is it possible to argue between two points here? I'm just saying (AGAIN) that the environment that has been created is one that people will snap in. Fuck I don't even care anymore. it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I would never defend Sarah Palin on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What matters, is that it's way too easy to imply a connection between the shooting and SP's crosshairs. Sp, and the fear mongering media for that matter, should have realized beforehand that random shit (from their point of view) like this can happen and that connections to their way of portraying things will be made soon after. SP should have foreseen she'd be a sitting duck if a shooting like this would ever happen. Ironically of course, Gifford warned her for it. Even if a link cannot be proven, SP should be mature enough to take responsibility for her "lack of strategy" and wisen-up fast. If possible. Which is very doubtful, obviously. Agreed—I think this is SP's big mistake. Jared Loughner very VERY likely would have done this regardless of Sarah Palin's fame, career, notoriety or fanbase, so I don't think she should be accepting blame for murder. But unless she's hired morons, her PR team should definitely recognize that the rhetoric can be interpreted as condoning such behavior. Plus, I think it wouldn't hurt to put forth more sincere condolences than a Facebook apology, just out of principal. how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood me—i think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. i never said she caused it! Good god,, is it possible to argue between two points here? I'm just saying (AGAIN) that the environment that has been created is one that people will snap in. Fuck I don't even care anymore. it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable. chill pill my friend, chill pill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood me—i think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. i never said she caused it! Good god,, is it possible to argue between two points here? I'm just saying (AGAIN) that the environment that has been created is one that people will snap in. Fuck I don't even care anymore. it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable. One problem with this argument.. this type of behavior is nothing new and I would be willing to bet statistically its not on the increase either. A guy serving on the arms comittee in the house back in 94 told clinton he better watch out going to any military bases because a patriotic soldier might defend this country by shooting him.. don't get sucked into the fear mongering People forget just how popular and outspoken the militia movement was in the 90s its like we've all had memory erasure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 the youngins have already forgotten Waco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood me—i think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. i never said she caused it! Good god,, is it possible to argue between two points here? I'm just saying (AGAIN) that the environment that has been created is one that people will snap in. Fuck I don't even care anymore. it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable. One problem with this argument.. this type of behavior is nothing new and I would be willing to bet statistically its not on the increase either. A guy serving on the arms comittee in the house back in 94 told clinton he better watch out going to any military bases because a patriotic soldier might defend this country by shooting him.. don't get sucked into the fear mongering People forget just how popular and outspoken the militia movement was in the 90s its like we've all had memory erasure big willie style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 All I have to say is... I doubt Palin would be able to take a bullet to the dome like Giffords did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 "he was a habitual marijuana user" yeah blame it on the sacrament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 All I have to say is... I doubt Palin would be able to take a bullet to the dome like Giffords did. some would argue it would make little difference to her mental acuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 how could you defend that , though? if she's deleting stuff, then it's obvious she fucked up. let's get just a smidgen real here. and marilyn manson is the cause of columbine, sure. she has to delete stuff because she's a politician. and you might have misunderstood mei think her team deleting tweets and web posts isn't an admission of guilt on their part. at the same time, i'm not condoning her tactics. i never said she caused it! Good god,, is it possible to argue between two points here? I'm just saying (AGAIN) that the environment that has been created is one that people will snap in. Fuck I don't even care anymore. it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable. One problem with this argument.. this type of behavior is nothing new and I would be willing to bet statistically its not on the increase either. A guy serving on the arms comittee in the house back in 94 told clinton he better watch out going to any military bases because a patriotic soldier might defend this country by shooting him.. don't get sucked into the fear mongering People forget just how popular and outspoken the militia movement was in the 90s its like we've all had memory erasure Good point. On an ever broader note, people forget about the broad populist movements of the past. We're in a hyperactive mode [my earlier rants included] because we can discuss everything so instantly and superficially. Hopefully in retrospect certain events and will pan out as being overreacted to by the public, and overlooked events of the past will be revisited. For example, most people remember Somalia because of the film Black Hawk Down but events like the Grenada Invasion, Panama Invasion, and The largest post-WWII US naval battle are never discussed in comparison with the current "war on terror," especially in regards to political and social repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixxx Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/11/arizona-shootings-tea-party huff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 if sarah palin was smart she could use this as an opportunity to make an Obama 'jeremey wright racism' style speech and address the issue of extreme rhetoric, take responsibly for using it, apologize and make a vow to tone it down and set an example for everyvody else. She doesnt have to bring anything partisan into it. This could in fact 'redeem' her in the eyes of many people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/11/arizona-shootings-tea-party huff. Yo what's up? You are like into politics and stuff? cool....you should like read the rules or somethin, if you are feelin it? Talk to ya later. if sarah palin was smart she could use this as an opportunity to make an Obama 'jeremey wright racism' style speech and address the issue of extreme rhetoric, take responsibly for using it, apologize and make a vow to tone it down and set an example for everyvody else. She doesnt have to bring anything partisan into it. This could in fact 'redeem' her in the eyes of many people Damn dude....I hope no tea party campaign persons read this, but I am sure they are going to do this....ahhhh what a world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.