werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Agreed, people threatening Palin are crazies. I'd also agree that if someone is at the level of threatening another's life for political disagreement, then their politics is largely immaterial. Again, Palin can't have it both ways. She can't claim that her words have no effect on inciting violence whilst those of her opponents do. My point is not specifically to defend Palin, merely to point out that the left cannot have it both ways either. If Palin's vitriol is (at least partially) responsible for inciting violence, then the left's collective vitriol (which dwarfs Palin's) must also be responsible for the threats against her. It's a two way street. Palin's accusations have validity to the exact same extent as do those of her detractors.Why does it have to be either the left or the right threatening her? Wouldn't it just be the fault of those few crazies who did?
But the right is screaming that rhetoric is not responsible for what crazy people do. Palin said herself:
Personally I think that every person is responsible for his or her own actions. A person who can be incited to murder Palin because of vitriol from her opponents is also capable of murdering Palin because of an unacceptable answer to "What is the point of government when words have no meaning?" or "What is the taste of purple?" or "What's the frequency Kenneth?" I'm just saying that blaming Palin also requires taking the blame for her death threats. Pick a lane, all vitriol causes violence or it doesn't.