For running away from the possibility that she may have influenced him with
her words.  Someone commented in another forum, commenting on what Kieth
Olbermnan said, to paraphrase since I don’t remember where the original
quote is..."I do not believe that anything I have said would have influenced
this guy to shoot anyone, but if my words did incite any of this, I do
apologize..."  If she had said anything like this...instead of screaming
about blood libel... which is a very racist term and a whole 'nother
discussion...we probably wouldn't be discussing this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 08:34 
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Democratic congresswoman shot in the head at point blank range.


Eric - as much as I despise Palin, there is still no evidence that what she
said, and the map she put out, had ANY influence on this guy.
So, how is she a hypocrite? How is she NOT taking responsibility? She is not
denying she said what she did.

If there was some proof and she did not 'man up', well, then I would agree
with you. But until they can show that what she said had an influence on
this guy, I fali to see how she is being hypocritical.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Eric Roberts
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The only fools, Sam, are the hypocrites that are denying it and 
> running from the personal responsibly they like to yack about so much, 
> yet run from when confronted with it...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 08:19
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Democratic congresswoman shot in the head at point blank
range.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:52 AM, denstar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Come now, you know as well as I that the Democrats haven't been as 
>> gun happy.  Hell, that's one of the memes, right?  The dems & libs 
>> will take your guns- we want you to bring them to rallies! 
>> (metaphorically, we meant!)
>
> That's pure bullshit and your a fool to say it.
> Real threats have been coming from your side all along. And now, due 
> to the level of effort your side when through to blame Palin for this, 
> death threats to her have increased at unprecedented levels since the
shooting.
> Stop making shit up and presenting it as known fact.
>
>> Don't go 'n' pull the JerryB card, where you equate 3% as being the 
>> same as 33% -- hey, they're both percents, right?  "You do it too!" 
>> et al.
>
> I know you think facts suck but we like them. Where did you get the 3% 
> number?
>
>>> Pretty much. I know, the easiest way to back peddle here is to say 
>>> "taht's not what I meant by that."
>> You say this because I don't blame Obama for the polarization?
>
> I say it because you're blaming Palin for the causing people to shoot 
> senators, but probably not this one. Unrelated topics sharing a thread.
>
>> I happen to believe that we are all connected, and thus, yes, have an 
>> effect on each other-- everyone, even.
>
> That's deep. But we're discussing a shooting. Are you now saying we 
> influenced this guy even though he didn't watch tv or listen to politics?
> Are you saying the Dem that said to shoot the guy running for Governor 
> didn't effect him but Palins lock and load comment did?
> Why are you sneaking in here disguised as a right wing issue when you 
> clearly know it is not?
>
>> How much is up for debate, but you cannot deny that there is some
> relation.
>
> I'm denying it. Who retaliated for what. Make that statement clear so 
> when you step back from it I can reference it.
>
>> Politicians -- *politicians!* -- capitalizing on an *armed* 
>> revolution
>> -- and poor schmucks falling for it-- *stutter* -- while having the
>
> Who, what and where? Be specific. You're intentional vagueness comes 
> in handy down the road but I want to cut to the chase.
>
>> nerve to knock "hope and change".  *sigh*  All this is lost on you 
>> though.  You don't have a problem with politicians using fear as 
>> their tool.  With leveraging our anger in some sorta Hitler-like way.  
>> It's all the same to you.  Black and white, at the same time.  Gray, 
>> I guess?
>
> Hitler like way? Are you still talking about lock and load or the 
> democrat and his firing squad. I need clarity.
>
>> And I figure you'd say the same for the me.  I was hoodwinked.  How's 
>> that hope and change working out.  Obama was the messiah!  The One!
>> Heh.  Like living in a comic book.
>
> Whaaaa? You're on the wrong thread again.
>
>> And in the end-- I don't know if you believe in responsibility or
>> not-- yes, "we the people" (that's me and you, bub.  And Them too.) 
>> are ultimately responsible for the state of our nation.  Hell, the 
>> state of the world.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Why is that thought such anathema to you?  Would you rather have 
>> something, or someone to blame?  You *want* to be ruled by "the 
>> Media", and evil socialists, etc., no?  Absolve yourself, and 
>> everyone else, of any real responsibility?
>
> That's you bub. I want to look at facts and it seems this guy was a
nutter.
> You want to blame me, Palin and everyone on the right. I am not 
> responsible for what this guy did.
> There I said it. Now you try.
>
>> You'd be nuts to think that what we say has no effect on one another 
>> though.  Is that what you're saying?  That "man is an island", so to 
>> speak?
>
> Yeah.
>
>> What, exactly, *are* you saying?
>
> Sometimes people lose it. It happens, pointing fingers at people you 
> disagree with does nothing to help, it only makes things worse.
> Remember the Fort Hood shooting the first response was don't jump to 
> conclusions. Why didn't that happen this time?
>
>> I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Save threads?  Do you see 
>> discussions on this list as some sort of binary battle?  "There's 
>> only two things you can support, and they're both extremes!"  "You're 
>> with us, or you're a terrorist!"... maybe you think my underwear is 
>> too old? (but it's so comfortable!)
>
> You're discussing to things, this shooting and violent rhetoric that 
> causes shootings. You then claim the two are not related but just 
> happen to be discussed in the same thread. I'm saying you're excuse is 
> you were to lazy to start another thread, which we both know is bullshit.
>
>> LOL.  Sorry.  I honestly don't grok what that is referring t
>
>
>
> 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333385
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to