Congresswoman ShotFollow

And maybe someone should have waited to find out whether or not the shooting had anything at all to do with actions from last March *before* making that a point. When the facts come out, no one will be told that this guy wasn't a conservative, and didn't follow Palin. The story will be out of the news cycle by then, right? But they will remember the allegations that rhetoric like that used by Palin was connected to the shooting.

Which is exactly why they made that connection. It's just amazing that you can't see how inconsistent this is. Where was the NYT saying to "wait until the facts are in before leaping to conclusions" like they did during the Fort Hood shooting? I don't recall them running an article on their front page about allegations that he was motivated by radical Islamic beliefs. Quite the opposite in fact.

Yet that actually turned out to be true, didn't it? And the connections they're leaping to now without waiting for the facts? Almost certainly are going to turn out to be false. Huh. Interesting...



That's as good a term as any.

Well, she was talking to a conservative talk show hst (you didn't think she'd be talking to the LAMESTREAM MEDIA, did you?) so you can take your beef up with him.


Have you just not opened a newspaper, gone to a news website or turned on a tv/radio since Saturday?

Right, then.

Your "point" in mentioning it is irrelevant though. I suspect you aren't getting this. It's not about *why* you mentioned Palin. It's that you did. And getting people like you to talk about Palin in the context of this shooting is exactly why the media mentioned it in the first place. It does not matter why you're talking about it. The mere fact of repetitious mention of Palin's uses of gun metaphors reinforces the association between such statements and violent acts like this in the minds of the population.


As I pointed out above, in 6 months when the details of this event have faded, what people will remember is that along with the shooting was talk about conservative rhetoric fueling it. What exactly was said, what facts were presented, and what support there was for the allegations wont matter because the overwhelming majority of the population wont remember any of that. But they will remember the association. And when someone in the future suggests that we "ratchet down the rhetoric" coming from conservatives and proposes some variation of the fairness doctrine, those people will be just a little more likely to accept the idea.


This is precisely how the media manipulates the public. I'll point out again that when the Fort Hood shooting occurred, the very same media and pundits jumped up right away and insisted (correctly) that we should not draw any conclusions or make any speculations until we know all the facts. Why is this any different? Heck. Can't you see *what* is different?

In this case, they have an opportunity to use a violent act which took people's lives for political advantage and they are shamefully doing so.



And yet, like the good little sheep you are, you repeating allegations made in the media about Palin anyway.


The larger point is that it's a disgusting act of partisan politics to make this into a political attack while the bodies of the dead are still being counted and the living still being treated. Yet, that's exactly what the left did here. On Saturday the connection to conservative talk was already being made. At the same time, mention of lax gun control laws were being talked about. On Monday Clyburn proposed re-installing the fairness doctrine (or some version of it) and cited this attack as a reason why we needed to reign in the out of control conservative rhetoric.


I'm sorry, but the left has acted with incredible lack of respect, restraint, and frankly seem to lack even the most basic human decency. Their actions are an embarrassment to us all. And you jumping in and saying the equivalent of "well, I don't think it's connected, but..." is only slightly less so. The correct response to what they have been saying is condemnation. Period.

Anyone who sat for a page and insisted that "RELOAD" referred to refreshing a website lacks any credibility to try and pull that line :D

And maybe someone should have waited to find out whether or not the shooting had anything at all to do with actions from last March *before* making that a point. When the facts come out, no one will be told that this guy wasn't a conservative, and didn't follow Palin

Fortunately for you, "facts" aren't ever an issue, so no worries!

None of which changes the fact that the left is using this tragedy as a means to mount an incredibly tasteless and cheap political attack on the GOP.

You get that Palin isn't the point here, right? But the fact that you keep on focusing on her *is*. That's exactly why her statements (and those of others) were written and spoken about over the last few days. To get people thinking about conservative speech in association with the shooting.


Surely you get this, right? You're being used.

Its confusing because he thought Palin was simply asking him to F5 the twitter, you know RELOAD the webpage and all...

Circumstances aside, the story about him meeting her in 2007 was kind of funny. He was all pissed off and ******** to a friend about how he asked her a question and she refused to answer him. So his friend says, "So what was the question?" "What is government if it doesn't exist?"

"...
...

...

Dude, no one is going to answer that question..."

Did I miss him stating that he was biased? Because if not, he'll jsut claim he wasn't being biased here either. Denial is a powerful weapon.

If you're going to bring up robin Williams, you may want to join in on this thread.

I know you're just intending it for a joke, but if you have any real desire to force him to have a revelatory moment, then repetition is the opposite of what you should do. Repetition is like nagging, and forces people to stop listening to the argument altogether.