Who did you blame for the Ft. Hood shooter?

Is the president responsible for the "violent atmosphere" as well?

The terroristic ideals of the Fort Hood shooter was prevalent well before this presidency.  

If you fail to see the violent rhetoric in Palin's platform, you either don't pay any attention what so ever to politics or are severely blinded by your views.

Again, my post is in reference to Palin's response to this tragedy, something you continue to avoid.  If you wish ttry and state a connection between Obama's policies and the Ft. Hood shooter go ahead, but probably best in another thread.  What you are doing here is the same thing I take issue with in Palin's response.  Avoid the actual topic at hand and shift the focus elsewhere.

jimmy1370 wrote: Okay, forget the Ft. Hood shooter.

You said Palin must own up to violent rhetoric. Does Obama also have to own up to his violent rhetoric? You said she created a "violent atmosphere", I assume you mean due to the violent rhetoric. So I ask again, is Obama also responsible for creating it as well?

"blood libel" is persecuting someone for an offense that they are not guilty of. the term was used correctly. Whether or not you think the term should have been used is another matter, but it was not used incorrectly.

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. I believe if she wins the Repub nomination in 2012, it will be an automatic win for Obama. But Palin did not start any of this hateful rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for DECADES before anyone had ever heard the name Sarah Palin. and the libs need to stop pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unless they are ready to realize that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad or worse.

The minute I heard about this shooting, I knew it would turn into a media witch hunt against people like Palin and Limbaugh. Nevermind that the evidence shows that this nut was obsessed with Gifford for at least a year before Palin was well known throughout the country.

GoGamecocks02 wrote:

"blood libel" is persecuting someone for an offense that they are not guilty of. the term was used correctly. Whether or not you think the term should have been used is another matter, but it was not used incorrectly.

 

 

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. I believe if she wins the Repub nomination in 2012, it will be an automatic win for Obama. But Palin did not start any of this hateful rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for DECADES before anyone had ever heard the name Sarah Palin. and the libs need to stop pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unless they are ready to realize that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad or worse.

 

The minute I heard about this shooting, I knew it would turn into a media witch hunt against people like Palin and Limbaugh. Nevermind that the evidence shows that this nut was obsessed with Gifford for at least a year before Palin was well known throughout the country.

GoGamecocks02 wrote:

"blood libel" is persecuting someone for an offense that they are not guilty of. the term was used correctly. Whether or not you think the term should have been used is another matter, but it was not used incorrectly.

 

 

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. I believe if she wins the Repub nomination in 2012, it will be an automatic win for Obama. But Palin did not start any of this hateful rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for DECADES before anyone had ever heard the name Sarah Palin. and the libs need to stop pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unless they are ready to realize that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad or worse.

 

The minute I heard about this shooting, I knew it would turn into a media witch hunt against people like Palin and Limbaugh. Nevermind that the evidence shows that this nut was obsessed with Gifford for at least a year before Palin was well known throughout the country.

cockntaterland wrote:

GoGamecocks02 wrote:

"blood libel" is persecuting someone for an offense that they are not guilty of. the term was used correctly. Whether or not you think the term should have been used is another matter, but it was not used incorrectly.

 

 

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. I believe if she wins the Repub nomination in 2012, it will be an automatic win for Obama. But Palin did not start any of this hateful rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for DECADES before anyone had ever heard the name Sarah Palin. and the libs need to stop pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unless they are ready to realize that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad or worse.

 

The minute I heard about this shooting, I knew it would turn into a media witch hunt against people like Palin and Limbaugh. Nevermind that the evidence shows that this nut was obsessed with Gifford for at least a year before Palin was well known throughout the country.

I totally agree. Also no fan of Palin, but she deserves none of the blame, nor does this fall at the feet of right wing rhetoric.

It does raise the issue of why we continue to ignore mental illness on a local and national level however.

theZero wrote:

GoGamecocks02 wrote:

"blood libel" is persecuting someone for an offense that they are not guilty of. the term was used correctly. Whether or not you think the term should have been used is another matter, but it was not used incorrectly.

 

 

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. I believe if she wins the Repub nomination in 2012, it will be an automatic win for Obama. But Palin did not start any of this hateful rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for DECADES before anyone had ever heard the name Sarah Palin. and the libs need to stop pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unless they are ready to realize that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad or worse.

 

The minute I heard about this shooting, I knew it would turn into a media witch hunt against people like Palin and Limbaugh. Nevermind that the evidence shows that this nut was obsessed with Gifford for at least a year before Palin was well known throughout the country.

The term is well-known for the act of falsely blaming an individual, or more often a group, of committing an atrocity (most often ritualistic murder) and using that as an excuse for violence against them. Jews using Christian blood to cook with, for example. For the record, I hadn't heard the term since studying the holocaust in college. Her use of the term was not incorrect, but I wouldn't call it "correct" either. I would say it was gross exaggeration, highly ill-advised, and mostly just dumb.You are correct - if she win's the Republican nomination, we have Obama for 4 more years.

The shooting has sadly turned into a witch hunt. The crazy dude is to blame, not the pundits, the gun, or anything else.

That being said, in local terms, if I went around town and showed people a map of the town with a elected representative's house with a bullseye on it and used terms like, "I'm targetting representative X" and "second amendment remedy" and "don't retreat, reload" and then that person was killed by an out-of-town drifter ... well, you can bet that someone would want to 1) kick my butt and, 2) see if I influenced the crazed gunman in any way. Again, not saying it is anyone's fault - not Palin's, Limbaugh's, or even the "political climate." Just saying that I can understand that people are lashing out at individuals who were using charged rhetoric. I just don't agree with the lashing out OR the rhetoric.