Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you give the Daily KOS a pass for having bulls-eyes on Giffords on their map, yet you don't give Palin the same benefit of the doubt?
I can see I'm dealing with people who are desperate to spin things their own way.
The alleged links to Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Gifford's opponent, etc. were wrong because there is no proof whatsoever that the AZ Shooter ever listened to them or saw anything they put out.
In this case, there IS DIRECT evidence that this guy found the things he linked to as an influence on HIS actions, especially considering he linked to them in his final screed to the world.
So you give the Daily KOS a pass for having bulls-eyes on Giffords on their map, yet you don't give Palin the same benefit of the doubt?
I can see I'm dealing with people who are desperate to spin things their own way.
The alleged links to Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Gifford's opponent, etc. were wrong because there is no proof whatsoever that the AZ Shooter ever listened to them or saw anything they put out.
In this case, there IS DIRECT evidence that this guy found the things he linked to as an influence on HIS actions, especially considering he linked to them in his final screed to the world.
Just a request, if you do not want use the quote function name who it is you are addressing, Thanks.
Casper
So you give the Daily KOS a pass for having bulls-eyes on Giffords on their map, yet you don't give Palin the same benefit of the doubt?
I can see I'm dealing with people who are desperate to spin things their own way.
The alleged links to Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Gifford's opponent, etc. were wrong because there is no proof whatsoever that the AZ Shooter ever listened to them or saw anything they put out.
In this case, there IS DIRECT evidence that this guy found the things he linked to as an influence on HIS actions, especially considering he linked to them in his final screed to the world.
You have not stated what was the objectionable material on the liberal website?
Yeah, of course Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy for political reasons.
Anarchists aren't politically motivated.
John Wilkes Booth didn't kill Lincoln over political belief such as giving Blacks the right to vote.
Who are you kidding?
The only one on that list that didn't attempt murder for a political reason is Hinckley, but that list definitely shows who is more prone towards assassinations.....you don't see a single Republican/Conservative on a list of all assassins of US Presidents.
You have not stated what was the objectionable material on the liberal website?
I really don't have to because I didn't say "objectionable material" made him do anything.
I have said from the onset that things he read and things he linked to had an OBVIOUS influence on him or else he wouldn't have linked to them in his final screed.
Liberals here didn't always quote SPECIFIC words of Conservative pundits when they were making their baseless claims did they?
No, they just alluded to alleged hate filled rhetoric if I recall correctly.
In this case, there IS DIRECT evidence that this guy found the things he linked to as an influence on HIS actions, especially considering he linked to them in his final screed to the world.
No, there really isn't, and no, he really didn't.
You have failed to "connect the dots" to show that anything specifically on the sites he linked to influenced his actions that day.
All those links prove is that those sites influenced his politics.
His mental illness influenced his actions.
If you can provide a statement made by any of the liberal websites he linked to, that he stated outright on his Facebook page that he was following the direction of, I will gladly agree with you.
In fact, if you can find anything he linked to (not just links you find yourself that you think are inflammatory), that has specific inflammatory language or could be construed by the average reader to be suggesting violent action or inciting one to commit violence, I will gladly agree with you.
Well, first of all, you can't prove otherwise either since Facebook deleted his page.
Secondly, I'm applying the same logic that was used by Liberals when they attempted to pin blame on non-specific rhetoric by Conservatives for the AZ shooter's actions.
Third, there is way more of a connection when the guy's final screed telling the world why he's about to attempt to murder someone links directly to progressive websites within that screed.
Why on Earth would he link the things he's saying in an explanation of why he's going to try to murder someone to a website of any type if that website had nothing at all to do with his motives?
In this case, there IS DIRECT evidence that this guy found the things he linked to as an influence on HIS actions, especially considering he linked to them in his final screed to the world.
You keep saying that...
So please, stop all the tap dancing and tell us:
Exactly what were "the things he liked to" that were objectionable to you?
Well, first of all, you can't prove otherwise either since Facebook deleted his page.
It's not up to us to "prove otherwise." You made the allegation, so it's up to you to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
Secondly, I'm applying the same logic that was used by Liberals when they attempted to pin blame on non-specific rhetoric by Conservatives for the AZ shooter's actions.
"Non-specific rhetoric"? You must not have paid close attention. Many very specific quotes and imagery made by many Conservatives were cited. You haven't done the equivalent at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
Third, there is way more of a connection when the guy's final screed telling the world why he's about to attempt to murder someone links directly to progressive websites within that screed.
So you say, but cannot support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
Why on Earth would he link the things he's saying in an explanation of why he's going to try to murder someone to a website of any type if that website had nothing at all to do with his motives?
Your interpretation based on the article you cite is that he linked to those sites "in an explanation of why" he was going to do what he did, but you still haven't provided any information that supports that conclusion that we might be willing to concede if we could see it.
I really don't have to because I didn't say "objectionable material" made him do anything.
Here let me fix that for you:
"I can't because there is no evidence at all that there was anything objectionable on them."
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
I have said from the onset that things he read and things he linked to had an OBVIOUS influence on him or else he wouldn't have linked to them in his final screed.
So obvious that you have no clue what that influence was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
Liberals here didn't always quote SPECIFIC words of Conservative pundits when they were making their baseless claims did they?
On this issue, yes they did. There were so many specific words to quote that it was "a bit of a turkey shoot" trying to find examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
No, they just alluded to alleged hate filled rhetoric if I recall correctly.
As is so common, you do not recall correctly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
