Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say

[werepossum]

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:

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.

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.

 

[sandorski]

John Titor.

If you got out of Canada / your basement once in a while you'd realize most people don't give a crap about Sarah Palin or even politics.

lolwut?

 

[Infohawk]

lolwut?

That's exactly what I thought about your dumb post about time travelers...

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

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.

You're missing something important. The "vitriol" against Sarah Palin is criticism that her rhetoric is fomenting hatred. You're basically saying that you can never criticize a politician for anything because someone might be driven to violence. That you can never criticize a politician for fomenting hatred, because then you're also fomenting hatred. It just makes no sense.

And Palin is NOT being called out for merely critcizing Democrats. She's being called out for specifically using irresponsible violent rhetoric like "don't retreat, reload" and posting reticle maps aiming at Giffords.

There's no parallel here. If you say that I need to be assassinated, and I say what you're doing is wrong, that doesn't make me the same as you.

 

[sandorski]

That's exactly what I thought about your dumb post about time travelers...

It obviously went over your head.

 

[irishScott]

You're missing something important. The "vitriol" against Sarah Palin is criticism that her rhetoric is fomenting hatred. You're basically saying that you can never criticize a politician for anything because someone might be driven to violence. That you can never criticize a politician for fomenting hatred, because then you're also fomenting hatred. It just makes no sense.

And Palin is NOT being called out for merely critcizing Democrats. She's being called out for specifically using irresponsible violent rhetoric like "don't retreat, reload" and posting reticle maps aiming at Giffords.

There's no parallel here. If you say that I need to be assassinated, and I say what you're doing is wrong, that doesn't make me the same as you.

Yes, the left is insighting hate to combat hate, after claiming to despise hate tactics for so long. Yeah, that works.

Democrats post-Arizona shooting: The difference between Republican hate tactics and our hate tactics is that ours are right!!! /barf

 

[Infohawk]

It obviously went over your head.

Yes because it was so subtle I couldn't handle it. I understood the reference and explained why it was dumb. But maybe that went over your head.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes, the left is insighting hate to combat hate, after claiming to despise hate tactics for so long. Yeah, that works.

Democrats post-Arizona shooting: The difference between Republican hate tactics and our hate tactics is that ours are right!!! /barf

You can't complain that every criticism is inciting hate. If I bash the leader of the Aryan Nation for promoting hatred, does that mean I'm promoting hatred against him and therefore just as evil?

The WORST accusation you can make here is that the left is playing the blame game. That's not the same as fomenting rage and violence. I have yet to see the words "M16", "reload", or "2nd amendment solution" targeted toward Palin.

 

[irishScott]

You can't complain that every criticism is inciting hate. If I bash the leader of the Aryan Nation for promoting hatred, does that mean I'm promoting hatred against him and therefore just as evil?

The WORST accusation you can make here is that the left is playing the blame game. That's not the same as fomenting rage and violence. I have yet to see the words "M16", "reload", or "2nd amendment solution" targeted toward Palin.

No, but when you directly blame Palin for insighting killings that she had no known connection to for the sole purpose of political gain, literally minutes after the killings happen, then you are insighting hate for political gain.

And you won't see those exact words because, last I checked, anything promoting even the figurative usage of guns is largely against the Democrat platform.

 

[werepossum]

You're missing something important. The "vitriol" against Sarah Palin is criticism that her rhetoric is fomenting hatred. You're basically saying that you can never criticize a politician for anything because someone might be driven to violence. That you can never criticize a politician for fomenting hatred, because then you're also fomenting hatred. It just makes no sense.

And Palin is NOT being called out for merely critcizing Democrats. She's being called out for specifically using irresponsible violent rhetoric like "don't retreat, reload" and posting reticle maps aiming at Giffords.

There's no parallel here. If you say that I need to be assassinated, and I say what you're doing is wrong, that doesn't make me the same as you.

LOL Yeah, right. Palin has been treated like radioactive waste since McCain nominated her. No politician within my memory has ever been treated so poorly, nor attacked so personally.

You position is that saying Democrats want to kill Grandma for the common good is vitriol but saying Republicans want to kill Grandma for profit is only stating the truth. The vitriolic part - killing Grandma - is the same. The underlying truth (that resources are finite and someone, some mechanism, must ration them) is the same. Look back at the Michelle Malkin list, Democrats and progressives are at least as vicious in their speech as are the Republicans and Palin.

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL Yeah, right. Palin has been treated like radioactive waste since McCain nominated her. No politician within my memory has ever been treated so poorly, nor attacked so personally.

You position is that saying Democrats want to kill Grandma for the common good is vitriol but saying Republicans want to kill Grandma for profit is only stating the truth. The vitriolic part - killing Grandma - is the same. The underlying truth (that resources are finite and someone, some mechanism, must ration them) is the same. Look back at the Michelle Malkin list, Democrats and progressives are at least as vicious in their speech as are the Republicans and Palin.

Are you really concerned with Palin being treated like radioactive waste? Do you extend the same empathy to Rod Blagojevich and other corrupt politicians?

Do Republicans want to insure grandma or not?

 

[Steeplerot]

LOL Yeah, right. Palin has been treated like radioactive waste since McCain nominated her. No politician within my memory has ever been treated so poorly, nor attacked so personally.

You position is that saying Democrats want to kill Grandma for the common good is vitriol but saying Republicans want to kill Grandma for profit is only stating the truth. The vitriolic part - killing Grandma - is the same. The underlying truth (that resources are finite and someone, some mechanism, must ration them) is the same. Look back at the Michelle Malkin list, Democrats and progressives are at least as vicious in their speech as are the Republicans and Palin.

Problem is your partisanship is desperately providing you guys with justification of false equivalence of violent rhetoric with false accusations of ad hominem when there is a legitimate criticism. This is the same logic the shooter used with terrorism.

Use your heads, you sound like brainwashed guilt-ridden cultists the second a spotlight is shone upon conservatism.

 

[sandorski]

Yes because it was so subtle I couldn't handle it. I understood the reference and explained why it was dumb. But maybe that went over your head.

That was an explanation? Ok, I'll take your word for it.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I don't blame Palin for the shootings; that's the fault of the shooter, and the shooter alone. That said, did Palin and other shrill partisans (whether Republican or Democrat) contribute to a political climate that exalts extremist rhetoric? certainly. Palin gets no sympathy from me if she made an actual cross-hairs map, and whined about being criticized while not disavowing her previous partisan rhetoric (or belatedly doing so).
Same story with Angle, who called for "2nd Amendment remedies".

The fact that this shooter was mentally ill and did not appear to be motivated by (extremist conservative) political rhetoric is merely a small break for partisan Republicans, not an absolution.

 

[Infohawk]

The fact that this shooter was mentally ill and did not appear to be motivated by (extremist conservative) political rhetoric is merely a small break for partisan Republicans, not an absolution.

So even though you suggest that you feel the opposite, you come back to the fact that Republicans should be ashamed of something here... Sorry but it doesn't make any sense. There was no causation here. The guy wasn't one of "them." There's just no connection at all.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

So even though you suggest that you feel the opposite, you come back to the fact that Republicans should be ashamed of something here... Sorry but it doesn't make any sense. There was no causation here. The guy wasn't one of "them." There's just no connection at all.

I say "partisan Republicans" because it is they who are the ones who are both pro-gun and also using gun metaphors. I'm well aware that some Democrats and liberals have also made scathing remarks, but a gun-loving and gun-toting conservative who agrees with the "2nd amendment remedies" a nutjob like Angle espouses? That's just another Loughner waiting to happen....only the next time it will be politically driven.

No there is no causation, nor is there a connection...this time. Which is why I say people like Palin caught a break, but since people like her have greatly contributed to a hyper-partisan political culture, she and her ilk are certainly not as innocent as they're protesting if they're contributing to the problem.

 

[IBMer]

LOL Yeah, right. Palin has been treated like radioactive waste since McCain nominated her. No politician within my memory has ever been treated so poorly, nor attacked so personally.

Obama?

 

[Gyhrg71]

LOL Yeah, right. Palin has been treated like radioactive waste since McCain nominated her. No politician within my memory has ever been treated so poorly, nor attacked so personally.

Do you not recall the comments made by Palin herself during their campaign and the aftermath?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgwiFOid0gA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o&feature=related

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

So dumb. And that is a horribly, horribly written article.

 

[hal2kilo]

That whole article is a pity party that reeks of irony and partisan myopia all for gaining political points out of the tragedy in Arizona. It's pure political gamesmanship, nothing more, nothing less. Typical Palin politics.

Better to give then receive Sarah?......What goes around comes around, with a vengeance....Do unto others.....mess with the bull...set yourself up as a lightning rod in a storm and guess what?...geez, I could go on and on and on. They know this, but choose to ignore it as it conflicts with their agenda.

Being controversial as she likes to be to attract attention to herself for personal gain brings out the whacko's that support her and the ones that don't....obviously.

It seems suspiciously advantageous for her side to bring this out...right...on....que.

You bet'cha....*wink*

Yea, cry me a river, little miss victimhood.

 

[JulesMaximus]

She should go into hiding for at least the next 20 or 30 years...you know, just to be safe.

 

[Gyhrg71]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...nbelievable-video-of-political-madness/69530/

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...nbelievable-video-of-political-madness/69530/

Hey, anything's justified when you are "We the people, taking our country back"

 

[HAL9000]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/...in%27s_mouth_and_brain_can_be_reconnected

 

[bfdd]

Palin is an idiot, we know this, I'm not exactly sure why it needs to be brought up repeatedly and it doesn't change the fact that each person is responsible for themselves. He pulled the trigger, he pays for his crimes.