Blaming Sarah Palin for Arizona Shooting Is Wrong

[Peikko 1,575]

Using nuts to damn the opposition is indefensible. Neither side should be indulging in such ridiculousness (nor should ignorance of political ideology lead these discussions). Outside of blogs and commentary, is politics in American really this shallow?

One question does arise, is this politicization of absolutely every act somehow down to the fact that America espouses the two party system so that nuts have to fit into one side or the other?

Edited January 10, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[JohnSmith2007 353]

That statement is a smear, John (see, I called you John and not Gary!).

Ok, whatever man. Have it your way.

[chri'stina 190]

People are always smearing the other political party on VJ. Assuming someone, on VJ or in the news, is a RWN or a LWN without knowing everything about them in the first place is not cool.

[^_^ 5,021]

Ok, whatever man. Have it your way.

So you prefer Gary?

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

There are variables, but personal responsibility should come first and foremost. To deny that the Palins and Angles put the idea/imagery of using guns to resolve political differences is absurd. Wether or not this kid was influenced by that is unknown. It's a tragedy and we should hope the system will work it out. Using violence to resolve conflicts, either real or perceived, is an unfortunate reality. I am guilty of making assumptions and I was wrong to do so.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you're right wing, nuts will more often appear to be left wing, and vice versa.

Can't we just all agree that he was a nut without trying to use it to prove a point that fits our political agendas?

I don't agree with the bolded. For example, many people might agree with the notion that one should protect one's environment from man made destruction. Very few people would agree that one should protect our environment by threatening harm to hose who one perceives to be destroying it. Therefore, if a nut job justifies a violent act against the property or person of someone perceived to be harming the environment, those non nutty people who also wish to protect it are not going to deny that the nut job is motivated by the same desire to see the environment protected. In other words, one can very easily be objective about the ideological stand point of another, even if one also recognizes that that is where the similarity begins and ends.

My politically incorrect terminology is very unforgivable

Edited January 10, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't agree with the bolded. For example, many people might agree with the notion that one should protect one's environment from man made destruction. Very few people would agree that one should protect our environment by threatening harm to hose who one perceives to be destroying it. Therefore, if a nut job justifies a violent act against the property or person of someone perceived to be harming the environment, those non nutty people who also wish to protect it are not going to deny that the nut job is motivated by the same desire to see the environment protected. In other words, one can very easily be objective about the ideological stand point of another, even if one also recognizes that that is where the similarity begins and ends.

well. aren't we idealistic.

[Peikko 1,575]

well. aren't we idealistic.

Idealism is bad now? I thought it was aspirational

[^_^ 5,021]

Idealism is bad now? I thought it was aspirational

i didn't say it was bad. just not.. you know, real.

[웃 910]

There are variables, but personal responsibility should come first and foremost. To deny that the Palins and Angles put the idea/imagery of using guns to resolve political differences is absurd. Wether or not this kid was influenced by that is unknown. It's a tragedy and we should hope the system will work it out. Using violence to resolve conflicts, either real or perceived, is an unfortunate reality. I am guilty of making assumptions and I was wrong to do so.

"I HOPE THIS WAKES SOME OF YOU IDIOTS UP"

and by IDIOTS you meant RWNs

Edited January 10, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Jenn! 918]

I don't agree with the bolded. For example, many people might agree with the notion that one should protect one's environment from man made destruction. Very few people would agree that one should protect our environment by threatening harm to hose who one perceives to be destroying it. Therefore, if a nut job justifies a violent act against the property or person of someone perceived to be harming the environment, those non nutty people who also wish to protect it are not going to deny that the nut job is motivated by the same desire to see the environment protected. In other words, one can very easily be objective about the ideological stand point of another, even if one also recognizes that that is where the similarity begins and ends.

My politically incorrect terminology is very unforgivable

Well, note that I said "more often" and not always.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Liberal philosophy.... Blame someone else for their own mistakes...

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

I said I was wrong to assume. You believe he is not right wing. You are still assuming and showing your unabashed ignorance. You roll around in it like a pig in $#*t. Conservative philosophy... never admit you are wrong... even when you are completely full of $#*t.

[tmma 467]

Sometimes a nutcase is just a nutcase.

It is sadly predictable that there seems to be more attention to the pic on the website than the guy who did it Apparantly he had the congresswoman ' in his sights' since 2007-long before the pic was on SP's website.

[웃 910]

I said I was wrong to assume. You believe he is not right wing. You are still assuming and showing your unabashed ignorance. You roll around in it like a pig in $#*t. Conservative philosophy... never admit you are wrong... even when you are completely full of $#*t.

and you are showing your unabashed ignorance by assuming I am conservative...