• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Zyphlin said:
Would I take advise on how to live a lawful life from a career thief?

Then why do I care what you think is needed to address hypocrisy and "partisan hacks"? Especially when your "suggestion" is something I already know and have been actively doing.

I would suggest you actually fairly examine my posting habits before making uninformed suggestions.
Click to expand...

I am not a career thief, but thank you for the inuendo. Considering all your other personal attacks, I will just have to take this one in stride.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not paritcularly Bubba. I'm asking for an actual QUOTE, not some random writeres paraphrase.

Please, can you provide me an exact quote? A paraphrase is useless. I could paraphase that Obama suggested that one should "bring a gun" as a solution to political discourse by cherry picking a couple of words out of a quote, however when given the entire quote the meaning and context would change.

So I ask, and challenge again, please...someone show me a quote of a Republican suggesting that second amendment remedies are a "solution".
Click to expand...

let's see if you like this cite any better (i doubt it because it is still incriminating): Sharron Angle: “Second Amendment Remedies” | The State Column
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
let's see if you like this cite any better (i doubt it because it is still incriminating): Sharron Angle: “Second Amendment Remedies” | The State Column
Click to expand...

Ahh, thank you. An actual quote. And lets see what the quote is...

Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
Click to expand...

Well my god, that is clearly her stating that we should use second amendment remedies as a "solution".

....wait, no its the exact opposite of that. Its her saying she hopes that the citizenry, because if you'll note she's speaking in far larger terms and scopes than a single individual acting, does not reach the point that they start acting upon "second amendment remedies".

Now...call me crazy, but I'm not aware when the English language completely changed in meaning where suggesting that you hope something doesn't happen equates to suggesting that it SHOULD happen.

The only way someone could think she's actually legitimately advocating for people to start shooting government officials would be for them to be crazy enough to ignore context, take notions literal, AND think she's suggesting the government IS tyrannical.

The same could be said for comments suggesting that Sarah Palin created an atmosphere that helped cause the congresswomans death. Someone could hear that and rather than taking it in context (say, for instance, the person wasn't meaning Palin was LITERALLy responsible) believe that Sarah Palin is complicite in the murder of a federal judge and congresswomen and thus is guilty of a high crime against the country and action should be taken again her.

Essentially....crazy people could look at hateful rhetoric and think crazy things and possibly do a crazy thing. That doesn't mean what the crazy person took it as is actually what was said or advocated for, at all.

Stating you hope we don't reach a point in this country where citizens start shooting government officials is not the same as suggesting that shooting government officials is a solution people should take to political problems.
 
Gardener said:
I am not a career thief, but thank you for the inuendo. Considering all your other personal attacks, I will just have to take this one in stride.
Click to expand...

Of course you're not. See there are these things called analogies. Its similar to what you would find on SAT's. Remember the old..."Apple is to fruit as dog is to animal". Or "Guns::War as Whisks::Baking"

In this case "How to live life lawfully is to Advise from a Career Criminal as How to address hyper partisanship is to Advise from a Hyper Partisan".

Hopefully that helps clarify your confusion regarding the "innuedno" and your mistaken belief that somehow I was implying you're a career criminal.

Its actually a similar type of style that could be used for this topic to show the illogic of some on the left currently with this.

Somehow

Hateful Rhetoric that is about the congresswomen is to enabling the death of this congresswomen

is a legitimate view point for them yet somehow

Hateful Rhetoric that is about Palin is to enabling the death threats against Palin

is somehow NOT a legitimate view point to them.

This, despite the fact that in both cases there is as much evidence to suggest that the "rhetoric" had anything at all, directly or indirectly, to do with the final action of one as there is the other.

Astounding what analogies can show you. You learn something every day.
 
Zyphlin said:
Of course you're not. See there are these things called analogies. Its similar to what you would find on SAT's. Remember the old..."Apple is to fruit as dog is to animal". Or "Guns::War as Whisks::Baking"

In this case "How to live life lawfully is to Advise from a Career Criminal as How to address hyper partisanship is to Advise from a Hyper Partisan".

Hopefully that helps clarify your confusion regarding the "innuedno" and your mistaken belief that somehow I was implying you're a career criminal.

Its actually a similar type of style that could be used for this topic to show the illogic of some on the left currently with this.

Somehow

Hateful Rhetoric that is about the congresswomen is to enabling the death of this congresswomen

is a legitimate view point for them yet somehow

Hateful Rhetoric that is about Palin is to enabling the death threats against Palin

is somehow NOT a legitimate view point to them.

This, despite the fact that in both cases there is as much evidence to suggest that the "rhetoric" had anything at all, directly or indirectly, to do with the final action of one as there is the other.

Astounding what analogies can show you. You learn something every day.
Click to expand...

My own S.A.T score was 1460 taken in 1972 before it was changed to make the acheivement of higher scores easier. At that time, the score was high enough to place me well within the top 1/10th of 1 % of all those taking it, and was good enough to get me accepted to Stanford.

How about you?
 
Zyphlin said:
Ahh, thank you. An actual quote. And lets see what the quote is...



Well my god, that is clearly her stating that we should use second amendment remedies as a "solution".

....wait, no its the exact opposite of that. Its her saying she hopes that the citizenry, because if you'll note she's speaking in far larger terms and scopes than a single individual acting, does not reach the point that they start acting upon "second amendment remedies".

Now...call me crazy, but I'm not aware when the English language completely changed in meaning where suggesting that you hope something doesn't happen equates to suggesting that it SHOULD happen.

The only way someone could think she's actually legitimately advocating for people to start shooting government officials would be for them to be crazy enough to ignore context, take notions literal, AND think she's suggesting the government IS tyrannical.

The same could be said for comments suggesting that Sarah Palin created an atmosphere that helped cause the congresswomans death. Someone could hear that and rather than taking it in context (say, for instance, the person wasn't meaning Palin was LITERALLy responsible) believe that Sarah Palin is complicite in the murder of a federal judge and congresswomen and thus is guilty of a high crime against the country and action should be taken again her.

Essentially....crazy people could look at hateful rhetoric and think crazy things and possibly do a crazy thing. That doesn't mean what the crazy person took it as is actually what was said or advocated for, at all.

Stating you hope we don't reach a point in this country where citizens start shooting government officials is not the same as suggesting that shooting government officials is a solution people should take to political problems.
Click to expand...

it's amazing that you believe her words weren't designed to impassion her base, and they were merely the worried musings of a concerned woman. ask yourself, why would she even be concerned that "second amendment remedies" would occur? in fact, she blatantly stated that a loss by harry reid would relieve those worries, didn't she? really, wtf did THAT mean? she's bat **** nuts. i don't blame her for actions others might take, but it's dishonest to pretend her words don't arouse emotions.
 
Gardener said:
My own S.A.T score was 1460 taken in 1972 before it was changed to make the acheivement of higher scores easier. At that time, the score was high enough to place me well within the top 1/10th of 1 % of all those taking it, and was good enough to get me accepted to Stanford.

How about you?
Click to expand...

Ah, then you should understand the type of analogy I was using in my original post. Excellent. I was confused by your impression that I was suggesting you were a criminal since I thought the analogy was rather obvious, but perhaps it was a minor slip. As to your credentials of your SAT scores or your college you went to; to be frank, I don't give a **** what some random guy on the internet wishes to say his intelligence or his education is. Its irrelevant to me, nor this discussion. If you wish to pound your chest, feel free. I'd rather continue to focus on the conversation and peoples on topic responses or counters to my arguments regarding the conversations, such as your attempt to suggest that my argument of hypocrisy was off base by trying to call to question my ability to do such, which was clearly refuted.
 
liblady said:
it's amazing that you believe her words weren't designed to impassion her base, and they were merely the worried musings of a concerned woman.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure her words as a whole were meant to impassion her base. I think Barack Obama's words about bringing a gun to a knife fight and because he's heard philedelphians like a good brawl were meant to impassion his base as well. I don't think his words were literally suggesting that they should bring guns to political arguments or that they need to literally brawl with their opponents, just like I don't think Angle was suggesting to her supporters that they needed to actively collectively use their second amendment currently to "Defend" themselves against Tyranny.

There's a LARGE difference between impassioning ones base and suggesting things that are the opposite of what you've stated or meaning your words literally.

ask yourself, why would she even be concerned that "second amendment remedies" would occur?
Click to expand...

Because the person asked her a question about her beliefs of what the second amendment believes. She gave that answer by pointing out her belief that the second amendment is for the citizens, and was put there by the founders to give citizens the ability to fight back and protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

This is an entirely legitimate and reasonable position to have imho, and historically backable.

However, if you make a statement like that, it begs for misinterprtation. As if by advocating for strong support of the second amendment, and believing that was the purpose of the second amendment, that you are therefore advocating for that to happen.

So when the person who was interviewing her tried to actually make it about TODAY rather than simply theoritical, Angle made it a point to suggest that no, she hopes its NOT something that is necessary in todays society.

in fact, she blatantly stated that a loss by harry reid would relieve those worries, didn't she? really, wtf did THAT mean? she's bat **** nuts. i don't blame her for actions others might take, but it's dishonest to pretend her words don't arouse emotions.
Click to expand...

Worries that Reid and others in the democrat party had been pushing for some time that somehow the Tea Party movement's rhetoric was causing "violence". If I remember correctly that comment came after the town halls and other such things when the accusations of such things really started heating up on the left.

Was it stupid to say it in the way she said it? Absolutely. Was her entire statement supposed to rouse emotions? Well...duh...anytime a politician speaks there's a 95% chance that its being done in a way that's hoping to rouse emotions. Was it literally advocating that "second amendment remedies" was a "solution" for our current modern political situation? Not unless you stretch it to an absolute extreme and add context based on nothing but ones own bias, dislike, or belief that the woman is "bat **** crazy".
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah, then you should understand the type of analogy I was using in my original post. Excellent. I was confused by your impression that I was suggesting you were a criminal since I thought the analogy was rather obvious, but perhaps it was a minor slip. As to your credentials of your SAT scores or your college you went to; to be frank, I don't give a **** what some random guy on the internet wishes to say his intelligence or his education is. Its irrelevant to me, nor this discussion. If you wish to pound your chest, feel free. I'd rather continue to focus on the conversation and peoples on topic responses or counters to my arguments regarding the conversations, such as your attempt to suggest that my argument of hypocrisy was off base by trying to call to question my ability to do such, which was clearly refuted.
Click to expand...

I understood what you were doing.

and I also understand the nature of your sophistry by way of defending it.
 
Here's a copy of the (removed already) youtube of the twitters hoping, wishing and praying either Palin getting Cancer or getting shot.

WARNING: NSFW due to language written in the tweets.


Far Left Goes On a Sarah Palin Death Wish Frenzy – The Video YouTube Pulled | The Gateway Pundit


The best comment sums that video up:

#21 January 13, 2011 at 10:24 am
Jack commented:

Copy the video an insert “Obama” everywhere “Palin” appears, and this same video will air on all the networks for weeks.
Click to expand...

How true is THAT comment!! There'd be riots in the streets, huge racists outcry's, the Secret Service and FBI being mobilized... it would almost be unfathomable. But since it's Palin... not a squeek about it.
 
Ockham said:
Here's a copy of the (removed already) youtube of the twitters hoping, wishing and praying either Palin getting Cancer or getting shot.

WARNING: NSFW due to language written in the tweets.


Far Left Goes On a Sarah Palin Death Wish Frenzy – The Video YouTube Pulled | The Gateway Pundit


The best comment sums that video up:



How true is THAT comment!! There'd be riots in the streets, huge racists outcry's, the Secret Service and FBI being mobilized... it would almost be unfathomable. But since it's Palin... not a squeek about it.
Click to expand...

I was actually watching the blood libel trend and the Sarah Palin trend pretty closely last night. Granted, there were some comments like that but they were fairly few and far between. Most of the tweets I saw were humor-based.
 
Zyphlin said:
Hateful rhetoric inspires dangerous situations and atmospheres.

Hateful rhetoric by palin can get a congresswoman shot.

However, baseless comments regarding Palins culpability with regards to the tragedy in Arizona are perfectly okay.

I guess the left has a monopoly on defining "hateful rhetoric" and "dangerous atmosphere" so that it only applies when its not referencing their own speech.

I don't think the lefts rhetoric as a whole is "responsible" for her increased death threats, but I do find it hillariously hypocritical that they're sitting around condemning "hateful rhetoric" based off the tragedy in Arizona with no proof it had anything to do with it while now dismissing that they're doing so with hateful rhetoric could just as easily be linked with creating a "violent atmosphere" themselves.

We must change the tone in this country!......by everyone on the right, we can keep being hateful.
Click to expand...

The Left wants to define everything: what's racists, bigotted, sexist, hateful.
 
Dezaad said:
I um, thought all conservatives were too busy explaining how inflammatory rhetoric was never partly responsible for crazy people doing violence. Too busy, that is, to be involved in threads where they would be claiming that what people say have consequences, some times dire ones. So, I would just be wondering what conservatives might be doing in this thread.
Click to expand...

Point out leftwing hypocracy here. Your President even agrees that the rhetoric didn't cause the shooting. When your messiah speaks, you'd better listen.
 
Palin is dying politically, so I have doubts that anyone would want to kill her. The left loves her, she garners more votes for the DEMS than any democrat campaigner does.
 
Big Tom said:
It's going to kill you when Palin wins in 2012.
Click to expand...

A: Sarah Palin will probably not win in 2012
B: Her election is not likely to cause anyones death, unless of course you're a wolf, and she's in a helicopter :prof
 
Big Tom said:
It's going to kill you when Palin wins in 2012.
Click to expand...

You have an interesting sense of humor. I would love to stay and chat, but I have to get back to the planet Earth.
 
apdst said:
The Left wants to define everything: what's racists, bigotted, sexist, hateful.
Click to expand...

Of course! You need the left to define these things as the right has completely lost its sense of reality.
 
Big Tom said:
It's going to kill you when Palin wins in 2012.
Click to expand...

She probably won't run.....
I have always voted republican, but I will vote for Obama before I vote for Palin. I know other republicans who feel the same.
 
Big Tom said:
It's going to kill you when Palin wins in 2012.
Click to expand...

I understand that you like her and agree with her politics, but think about it realistically. Do you honestly think that she will win?
 
Hatuey said:
Comments about Sarah Palin can get her shot...

However her rhetoric and comments can't get anybody else shot....

I guess she has a monopoly on getting shot for what somebody says about her....

That's like...

Blood libel right?
Click to expand...

They are waging a blood libel on her, but she's practicing her freedom of speech. :prof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom