zoocrew

Oh good grief. No one has said the shooter was influenced by Palin. No one. The map was something that is an example of what MAY or MAY NOT push someone over the edge if they are predisposed. THAT is what we're talking about. That's all anyone here is saying.

And it is wrong for them to do that too. That's what we've been saying. The rhetoric needs to be toned down because it is irresponsible.

I can't speak for mrnn but yes, the same statement would have been made. That's why we're talking about responsibility here. No one said that website had anything to do with it - could have, but could not have, too. But the Palin team obviously saw the problem with that sort of rhetoric and doesn't want to get blamed, rightly or wrongly. My Lord the distress the conservatives are showing over this despite NO ONE attacking them. Very. Defensive.

That's the point. He nor anyone else said the guy WAS influenced by Palin. No one. The only thing is that that sort of rhetoric COULD (didn't say it did) push people over the edge. That's all. Nothing more. I cannot believe people (in this case, the right wing) is getting defensive because there is no attack whatsoever on them.

Oh. I'm not going there no matter what my husband says.

I'm sure you've had others but that one was good. Really.

Jesus! No one is saying that!

That's just it. No one is trashing conservatives! No one is saying that Palin is the one who instigated the attack, though her website (as previously pointed out) could be the final straw of some people to go over the edge. That's NOT the same thing as saying Palin, the Tea Party or anyone is responsible for the actions of a deranged mad man. He is crazy and that is why it happened. Pointing out that crazy people may take something to the extreme is just that: the obvious. If Palin didn't think her website was completely innocuous in this sort of rhetoric, why remove that stuff? All anyone is

No one else has either. Please! MRNN just pointed out the obvious that that sort of rhetoric can push people over the edge. That is NOT the same thing as inspiring the guy to kill anyone. I used to think you were at least obective. Don't always agree but at lest you are objective. I totally take that back.

That is not insulting. You said you liked her but I pointed out you have NEVER mentioned her name on here before, that I could find. NEVER. Please! I don't think there is a Democrat you like because based on the stuff you say on here, it looks like you have said that the Democrats are socialists and Communists.

OMG. Nobody said he was inspired by Palin or anything like that. I did say it MAY have been the catalyst that pushes a crazy man over the edge but it is because he is CRAZY, not the politics. This is JUST like the crazy Army Major who shot up Fort Hood. He was crazy and the fact that he was a Muslim was completely relevant, except that the Muslim rhetoric may have pushed him. The rhetoric is NOT responsible and no one is saying it was. My God. This is unbelievable.

Oh please. You have never mentioned her on here before but suddenly we are to believe there was a Democrat you didn't think was a communist. Please. That. Is. Exactly. Right. And, ys, I saw that thread by Oscar. It was quite fun to move the cursor all over the map, too. Another + for this. Right on.

Well, no one has said it in this thread. The guy answered a question. He answered truthfully. He never said the Tea Party was responsible. In fact, here is what he said. Please - PLEASE - show us where he said the Tea Party was respsonsible. The very last part of the article says - That is NOT saying the Tea Party had anything to do with this but only stating the obvious that the political enemies are there. That is not the same thing as saying political enemies will kill someone.

And now we're being accused of saying the Tea Party is responsible for this. Unfricking believable. How anyone can read this thread and think that the Tea Party or any political idea is to blame for this would have to be intentionally looking for something.

If you're reading it that way then we have two completely different views of how to interpret the written word.

Did you read the article? It was immediately after the bomb was found and it was investigation of all leads. They investigated a gazillion other groups too. They were investigating all leads and they had a lead. They investigation NEVER said they thought the Tea Party followers were the ones that did this. It was just one lead.

Wait now. That is NOT what was said. He was asked about enemies and he said the whole Tea Party. That is NOT the same thing as saying is responsible for the tragedy. And it was NOT in the Huffington Post link. YOU brought up the Huffington Post.

No, the Tea Party extremists were NOT accused of the bombs found at Times Square but their rhetoric was said to maybe be a catalyst for some crazy people to do that. It turns out it was the rhetoric of the Islamic extremists. Extremism is extremism regardless of brand.

No one in this thread has done that. Saying that people should be responsible in how they say things because it can push people over the edge is just pointing out the obvious.

This is very similar situation to the Army Major that shot up Fort Hood (I think it was Fort Hood). He happened to be Muslim. However, his religion was not the cause of the shooting. He shot those people because he was psycho. Nuts. Loony. His religion had nothing to do with the shooting either. HOWEVER ... the catalyst was the extremism that fed into his deranged mind and he used that to justify his crazy actions. That doesn't mean the guy was a terrorist. His religion was not the cause. Being crazy was the cause. The extremist religion stuff just pushed him over the edge. Sa

Two thumbs up. I hope the politics had nothing to do with it. I really don't. But after looking at the guys videos, I'm afraid to think it, but it does look like a psycho with a gun and a political idea. If you're a guy, I just kissed you.

I wouldn't say this has anything to do with values or morals. The shooter obviously was psycho and has some problems.

Now that's funny! Any water scenes would have had Ol' Teddy running for cover.

Palin is a nut case. While she has the right to say those things, it is that sort of "stirring the emotional frenzy" that is so dangerous. That being said, I hope this is NOT politically motivated and that it was guy who just went psycho.

Here is a video of her just a few days ago reading the First Amendment in the House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs