Palin's website had several districts "in crosshairs"

[Skjellyfetti]

I think Ursus is sad his beloved Palin is now under more scrutiny for her rhetoric.

My beloved Palin? Sure thing sk.

Ooops. You fell in my trap.

Palin's style reminds me very much of my mother with her excitement towards doing good things for other people and trying to bridge gaps to accomplish things. She doesn't have the religious hard on angle but most people that are religious are not as hardline as the ones that we see supporting the right.

I will be donating to McCain/Palin in the next couple of weeks and after tonight I am really on the wagon. I love this gal.

I am only now felling like supporting McCain after he chose Palin.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

My beloved Palin? Sure thing sk.

Ooops. You fell in my trap.

Palin's style reminds me very much of my mother with her excitement towards doing good things for other people and trying to bridge gaps to accomplish things. She doesn't have the religious hard on angle but most people that are religious are not as hardline as the ones that we see supporting the right.

I will be donating to McCain/Palin in the next couple of weeks and after tonight I am really on the wagon. I love this gal.

I am only now felling like supporting McCain after he chose Palin.

I din't fall into any trap. I know what I've said about her. I also know that I've said much against her stupid shit as well. You probably took that from a discussion when me and Mark CCU were debating back and forth when she was first going to accept the nomination.

I've also many things for and against Bush, Obama, or whoever else.

You are on one team so you and the rest of your ilk on both sides always think you've go some "gotcha" moment. I had a real good idea that you were searching my posts looking for something like that when I answered ya sk. Now why don't you post some of my replies to SuperHornet where he is going overboard on how great everything she does is?

BTW, I've never donated to McCain/Palin and I made it quite clear who I backed last election so the middle one was most likely me trying to rub someone the wrong way...was it a reply to you?

[Skjellyfetti]

so the middle one was most likely me trying to rub someone the wrong way...was it a reply to you?

No. Didn't have an account here till October '08.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

so the middle one was most likely me trying to rub someone the wrong way...was it a reply to you?

No. Didn't have an account here till October '08.

Man, you were digging deep then to get back past your entry date.

[BlueHen86]

I have to think that Palin is appalled as the rest of us at what happened yesterday. I'm sure that she never intended for anyone to actually shoot Democratic office holders. There is also no indication that she had anything to do with case. This guy is clearly nuts and he was nuts before anyone outside of Alaska ever heard of Sarah Palin.

That said, I think Palin (and everyone else) should think twice before using any kind of violent imagery in future politcal adverstising, it certainly can't hurt.

There is no mistaking the bullseye Republicans from the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC):



Get it now from the DLC website before it is scrubbed:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contenti ... &subid=171" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...or the personal and Daily Kos blog and talking head attacks on blue dog moderate Gabrielle Giffords; much more vitriolic than on any Tea Party site:

http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congr ... pt-on-her/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...or the directly violent and incendiary rhetoric used by candidate Obama in 2008:



Free speech speaks for itself. We need not restrict free speech. We need only to be wise consumers.

Are you disagreeing with me? Or did you see this as an opportunity to rip the Dems? Both sides are F'd up, that's why I said "and everyone else" in my post.

I also didn't suggest that we should restrict free speech, only that people might want to think a little more before they talk, or in this case print political propaganda.

[native]

There is no mistaking the bullseye Republicans from the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC):



Get it now from the DLC website before it is scrubbed:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contenti ... &subid=171" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...or the personal and Daily Kos blog and talking head attacks on blue dog moderate Gabrielle Giffords; much more vitriolic than on any Tea Party site:

http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congr ... pt-on-her/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...or the directly violent and incendiary rhetoric used by candidate Obama in 2008:



Free speech speaks for itself. We need not restrict free speech. We need only to be wise consumers.

Are you disagreeing with me? Or did you see this as an opportunity to rip the Dems? Both sides are F'd up, that's why I said "and everyone else" in my post.

I also didn't suggest that we should restrict free speech, only that people might want to think a little more before they talk, or in this case print political propaganda.

First, I agree that we should not link the Giffords assassination attempt to any political arguments. The nut case who killed six people and attempted to assassinate Representative Gifford is a nut case, period. Even if it had turned out that he was affiliated with one side or another, that should never be cause to denigrate a political movement unless there are direct causal links. The overwrought, irresponsible and disingenuous reactions of lefties and Dems like Paul Krugman, Sheriff Dupnik, and a handful of cs.com leftie idiots, is absolutely despicable in this regard.

Second, I disagree that the Giffords incident is a cause for a criticism of political rhetoric or should be inspiration for any reduction of free speech. I hope and pray for no more such incidents as the one we suffered this weekend, but even with public exposure, Congressmen lead a far more safe and secure life than hundreds of thousands of constituents they fail to adequately protect every day.

Third, your post was not "fair and balanced" in its presentation. A generic condemnation of both sides is not good enough, BlueHen86. You specifically criticized Palin and left out any specific references to the other side, even though such references abound. This is your proclivity and it unfortunately must not go unchallenged.

Fourth, I do indeed rip the Dems, but for hypocrisy and falsehood, not for political rhetoric.

I hope this answers your question, brotha.

[BlueHen86]

Are you disagreeing with me? Or did you see this as an opportunity to rip the Dems? Both sides are F'd up, that's why I said "and everyone else" in my post.

I also didn't suggest that we should restrict free speech, only that people might want to think a little more before they talk, or in this case print political propaganda.

First, I agree that we should not link the Giffords assassination attempt to any political arguments. The nut case who killed six people and attempted to assassinate Representative Gifford is a nut case, period. Even if it had turned out that he was affiliated with one side or another, that should never be cause to denigrate a political movement unless there are direct causal links. The overwrought, irresponsible and disingenuous reactions of lefties and Dems like Paul Krugman, Sheriff Dupnik, and a handful of cs.com leftie idiots, is absolutely despicable in this regard.

Second, I disagree that the Giffords incident is a cause for a criticism of political rhetoric or should be inspiration for any reduction of free speech. I hope and pray for no more such incidents as the one we suffered this weekend, but even with public exposure, Congressmen lead a far more safe and secure life than hundreds of thousands of constituents they fail to adequately protect every day.

Third, your post was not "fair and balanced" in its presentation. A generic condemnation of both sides is not good enough, BlueHen86. You specifically criticized Palin and left out any specific references to the other side, even though such references abound. This is your proclivity and it unfortunately must not go unchallenged.

Fourth, I do indeed rip the Dems, but for hypocrisy and falsehood, not for political rhetoric.

I hope this answers your question, brotha.

I mentioned Palin by name because her name is the one in the title of this thread.

And I have to disagree with you in regards to all the vitriol in todays political speeches and propagana. Just because we have free speech doesn't mean that we should use it with out thought. Once again, I'm not suggesting that we pass laws against it, only that people think before they speak.

I agree that this guy clearly is a nut, and I don't think his political affiliation matters.

The republicans are just as hypocritical, you seem way too willing to give them a pass.

[mainejeff]

I agree that this guy clearly is a nut, and I don't think his political affiliation matters.

Actually, his political affiliation DID matter........and his assassination attempt were due to his political beliefs.

He was OBVIOUSLY mentally unstable........but that doesn't automatically discount everything else. Seems like CONKS on here can't even admit the most basic of facts and truths that surround this tragedy.......I guess it just once again demonstrates their "win at any cost" mentality.

[native]

First, I agree that we should not link the Giffords assassination attempt to any political arguments. The nut case who killed six people and attempted to assassinate Representative Gifford is a nut case, period. Even if it had turned out that he was affiliated with one side or another, that should never be cause to denigrate a political movement unless there are direct causal links. The overwrought, irresponsible and disingenuous reactions of lefties and Dems like Paul Krugman, Sheriff Dupnik, and a handful of cs.com leftie idiots, is absolutely despicable in this regard.

Second, I disagree that the Giffords incident is a cause for a criticism of political rhetoric or should be inspiration for any reduction of free speech. I hope and pray for no more such incidents as the one we suffered this weekend, but even with public exposure, Congressmen lead a far more safe and secure life than hundreds of thousands of constituents they fail to adequately protect every day.

Third, your post was not "fair and balanced" in its presentation. A generic condemnation of both sides is not good enough, BlueHen86. You specifically criticized Palin and left out any specific references to the other side, even though such references abound. This is your proclivity and it unfortunately must not go unchallenged.

Fourth, I do indeed rip the Dems, but for hypocrisy and falsehood, not for political rhetoric.

I hope this answers your question, brotha.

I mentioned Palin by name because her name is the one in the title of this thread.

And I have to disagree with you in regards to all the vitriol in todays political speeches and propagana. Just because we have free speech doesn't mean that we should use it with out thought. Once again, I'm not suggesting that we pass laws against it, only that people think before they speak.

I agree that this guy clearly is a nut, and I don't think his political affiliation matters.

The republicans are just as hypocritical, you seem way too willing to give them a pass.

I AGREE with you that we should use our free speech responsibly. I DISAGREE with you that conks have been more irresponsible or hypocritical than donks. I don't give anyone a pass, I just think donks have been worse. I AGREE with you that restrictions on free speech are not the answer.

Turns out that we agree more than we disagree, BlueHen86.

Perhaps you would also agree with me that the antidote to irresponsible and hateful free speech is truthful and responsible free speech?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I agree that this guy clearly is a nut, and I don't think his political affiliation matters.

Actually, his political affiliation DID matter........and his assassination attempt were due to his political beliefs.

He was OBVIOUSLY mentally unstable........but that doesn't automatically discount everything else. Seems like CONKS on here can't even admit the most basic of facts and truths that surround this tragedy.......I guess it just once again demonstrates their "win at any cost" mentality.

Great work Columboob. Thanks for the solving the mystery for everyone. Even those of us that aren't from one side or the other.

[BlueHen86]

I mentioned Palin by name because her name is the one in the title of this thread.

And I have to disagree with you in regards to all the vitriol in todays political speeches and propagana. Just because we have free speech doesn't mean that we should use it with out thought. Once again, I'm not suggesting that we pass laws against it, only that people think before they speak.

I agree that this guy clearly is a nut, and I don't think his political affiliation matters.

The republicans are just as hypocritical, you seem way too willing to give them a pass.

I AGREE with you that we should use our free speech responsibly. I DISAGREE with you that conks have been more irresponsible or hypocritical than donks. I don't give anyone a pass, I just think donks have been worse. I AGREE with you that restrictions on free speech are not the answer.

Turns out that we agree more than we disagree, BlueHen86.

Perhaps you would also agree with me that the antidote to irresponsible and hateful free speech is truthful and responsible free speech?

I never said that. I think they are both the same.

And yeah, I know that we agree on more than we disagree with. Especially on this topic, where we are basically splitting hairs.

[native]

I AGREE with you that we should use our free speech responsibly. I DISAGREE with you that conks have been more irresponsible or hypocritical than donks. I don't give anyone a pass, I just think donks have been worse. I AGREE with you that restrictions on free speech are not the answer.

Turns out that we agree more than we disagree, BlueHen86.

Perhaps you would also agree with me that the antidote to irresponsible and hateful free speech is truthful and responsible free speech?

I never said that. I think they are both the same.

And yeah, I know that we agree on more than we disagree with. Especially on this topic, where we are basically splitting hairs.

OK then. I disagree with you that conks and donks are equally culpable. That's a mighty thick hair.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Because you're an incorrigible douchebag.

I'M the douche bag???.......that sounds pretty funny coming from a spoiled Ivy League fvck!

Im not Ivy League and he nailed it.

You are an incorrigible douchebag......but your our incorrigible douchebag.

[89Hen]

I'M the douche bag

Glad you're finally owning up to it.

[houndawg]

Does anyone believe someone that is tied to white supremacists groups is a liberal? How many KKK members are liberals?

Maybe, just maybe, he is a lunatic that didn't know what he was. I have no idea what his ties to a KKK group are but again we have more retards trying to say what he definitely is based on almost nothing.

Do yourself a **** favor and try to be a thinking man instead of an automaton.

How come this kid wasn't being treated for his mental illness?

[Appaholic]

The overwrought, irresponsible and disingenuous reactions of lefties and Dems like Paul Krugman, Sheriff Dupnik, and a handful of cs.com leftie idiots, is absolutely despicable in this regard.

What, exactly, did the Sheriff say that was so bad? All I heard him comment on was how basically the discourse in this country has disintegrated to the point of being uncivil & confrontational & the talking heads on the radio & TV are fomenting it....which happens to be true...did I miss something else? Seriously, I didn't hear his whole commentary, but did it have a leftisit bent where he was specifically calling conservative talk radio & TV shows? Or are knee-jerk conservatives inferring this connection out of some kind of guilt that they are, in fact, just as cantankerous as the leftist yahoos like Olberman?

[native]

The overwrought, irresponsible and disingenuous reactions of lefties and Dems like Paul Krugman, Sheriff Dupnik, and a handful of cs.com leftie idiots, is absolutely despicable in this regard.

What, exactly, did the Sheriff say that was so bad? All I heard him comment on was how basically the discourse in this country has disintegrated to the point of being uncivil & confrontational & the talking heads on the radio & TV are fomenting it....which happens to be true...did I miss something else? Seriously, I didn't hear his whole commentary, but did it have a leftisit bent where he was specifically calling conservative talk radio & TV shows? Or are knee-jerk conservatives inferring this connection out of some kind of guilt that they are, in fact, just as cantankerous as the leftist yahoos like Olberman?

Dupnik went far beyond your recollection and directly blamed Limbaugh. His unfounded accusations amount to a chilling personal partisan attack from a sworn law enforcement officer.

Is Limbaugh just as cantankerous as Olbermann? Yes. Is he as disingenuous as Olbermann? No. Are they both provocative? Sure. But neither Olbermann or Limbaugh are sworn public servants, let alone law enforcement officers. They are free to say what they desire and be judged in the marketplace of ideas.

A sheriff, on the other hand, has no business making these kinds of attacks. He needs to do his day job, period. Even if you agree Dupnik, which I do not, he is way out of line for his remarks. This case is similar to the remarks to the press from General McChrystal's staff, for which McChrystal was rightly fired, even if everything he and his staff said was God's truth.

These are Dupnik's words to Dianne Sawyer:

... “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information... The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about,” he said. “You can say, ‘Oh no, it doesn’t,’ but my opinion is that it does.” ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sherrif-dupn ... g-tragedy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Appaholic]

What, exactly, did the Sheriff say that was so bad? All I heard him comment on was how basically the discourse in this country has disintegrated to the point of being uncivil & confrontational & the talking heads on the radio & TV are fomenting it....which happens to be true...did I miss something else? Seriously, I didn't hear his whole commentary, but did it have a leftisit bent where he was specifically calling conservative talk radio & TV shows? Or are knee-jerk conservatives inferring this connection out of some kind of guilt that they are, in fact, just as cantankerous as the leftist yahoos like Olberman?

Dupnik went far beyond your recollection and directly blamed Limbaugh. His unfounded accusations amount to a chilling personal partisan attack from a sworn law enforcement officer.

Is Limbaugh just as cantankerous as Olbermann? Yes. Is he as disingenuous as Olbermann? No. Are they both provocative? Sure. But neither Olbermann or Limbaugh are sworn public servants, let alone law enforcement officers. They are free to say what they desire and be judged in the marketplace of ideas.

A sheriff, on the other hand, has no business making these kinds of attacks. He needs to do his day job, period. Even if you agree Dupnik, which I do not, he is way out of line for his remarks. This case is similar to the remarks to the press from General McChrystal's staff, for which McChrystal was rightly fired, even if everything he and his staff said was God's truth.

These are Dupnik's words to Dianne Sawyer:

... “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information... The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about,” he said. “You can say, ‘Oh no, it doesn’t,’ but my opinion is that it does.” ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sherrif-dupn ... g-tragedy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agree...missed that quote to Sawyer. I have no problem with him commenting on the overall tone of our national discourse (but would rather he do his job & stfu). But, as a public official, I agree he crossed a line by directly assigning blame to a specific person...at least without assigning equal time to olberman, et al.

BTW, Limbaugh is just as disingenuous as Olberman (see his mocking "jive talk" when speaking about Obama on yesterday's show....have a little class you drug-addicted fat ass... )

[houndawg]

What, exactly, did the Sheriff say that was so bad? All I heard him comment on was how basically the discourse in this country has disintegrated to the point of being uncivil & confrontational & the talking heads on the radio & TV are fomenting it....which happens to be true...did I miss something else? Seriously, I didn't hear his whole commentary, but did it have a leftisit bent where he was specifically calling conservative talk radio & TV shows? Or are knee-jerk conservatives inferring this connection out of some kind of guilt that they are, in fact, just as cantankerous as the leftist yahoos like Olberman?

Dupnik went far beyond your recollection and directly blamed Limbaugh. His unfounded accusations amount to a chilling personal partisan attack from a sworn law enforcement officer.

Is Limbaugh just as cantankerous as Olbermann? Yes. Is he as disingenuous as Olbermann? No. Are they both provocative? Sure. But neither Olbermann or Limbaugh are sworn public servants, let alone law enforcement officers. They are free to say what they desire and be judged in the marketplace of ideas.

A sheriff, on the other hand, has no business making these kinds of attacks. He needs to do his day job, period. Even if you agree Dupnik, which I do not, he is way out of line for his remarks. This case is similar to the remarks to the press from General McChrystal's staff, for which McChrystal was rightly fired, even if everything he and his staff said was God's truth.

These are Dupnik's words to Dianne Sawyer:

... “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information... The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about,” he said. “You can say, ‘Oh no, it doesn’t,’ but my opinion is that it does.” ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sherrif-dupn ... g-tragedy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus, nate, our brave law enforcement officials lay it on the line every day to protect the lives of such as you, and this is how you demonstrate your gratitude? You hate America don't support our troops.

As for Rush, he is a junkie and everybody knows what liars junkies are, nate.

[mainejeff]

I'M the douche bag

Glad you're finally owning up to it.

Eastern Washington.

[Wedgebuster]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/guns-tea-party/

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun/

[native]

Dupnik went far beyond your recollection and directly blamed Limbaugh. His unfounded accusations amount to a chilling personal partisan attack from a sworn law enforcement officer.

Is Limbaugh just as cantankerous as Olbermann? Yes. Is he as disingenuous as Olbermann? No. Are they both provocative? Sure. But neither Olbermann or Limbaugh are sworn public servants, let alone law enforcement officers. They are free to say what they desire and be judged in the marketplace of ideas.

A sheriff, on the other hand, has no business making these kinds of attacks. He needs to do his day job, period. Even if you agree Dupnik, which I do not, he is way out of line for his remarks. This case is similar to the remarks to the press from General McChrystal's staff, for which McChrystal was rightly fired, even if everything he and his staff said was God's truth.

These are Dupnik's words to Dianne Sawyer:

... “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information... The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about,” he said. “You can say, ‘Oh no, it doesn’t,’ but my opinion is that it does.” ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sherrif-dupn ... g-tragedy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus, nate, our brave law enforcement officials lay it on the line every day to protect the lives of such as you, and this is how you demonstrate your gratitude? You hate America don't support our troops.

As for Rush, he is a junkie and everybody knows what liars junkies are, nate.

Is that the best you can do, dawg?!??

[Baldy]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/guns-tea-party/

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun/

Nice manufactured outrage.

Compare someone holding up a poster of a handgun to Alan Hevesi saying at a commencement speech that Chuck "Schumer would shoot the president (Bush) between the eyes if he knew he could get away with it".

A picture of Obama morphing into a Nazi?
Oh the travesty, peace loving leftists would NEVER do anything like that.



Give it up Wedgie, this is a battle (sorry for the pun ) you'll never win.

[native]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/guns-tea-party/

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun/

Nice manufactured outrage.

Compare someone holding up a poster of a handgun to Alan Hevesi saying at a commencement speech that Chuck "Schumer would shoot the president (Bush) between the eyes if he knew he could get away with it".

A picture of Obama morphing into a Nazi?
Oh the travesty, peace loving leftists would NEVER do anything like that.



Give it up Wedgie, this is a battle (sorry for the pun ) you'll never win.

WTF??? Acting the fool and losing never stopped Wedges before!

[89Hen]

Glad you're finally owning up to it.

Eastern Washington.

I don't think Eastern Washington is a douche bag. Only you.