Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So if Sarah Palin was never a VP candidate, then the shooting would never have happened? C'mon.

Besides, the Tucson shooter was an Atheist and a Nihilist who hated the govt. And I can't think of too many GOP'ers who would also fit that description.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So if Sarah Palin was never a VP candidate, then the shooting would never have happened? C'mon.

Besides, the Tucson shooter was an Atheist and a Nihilist who hated the govt. And I can't think of too many GOP'ers who would also fit that description.

That's correct because that moron (he's a jerk, a murderer, scum, etc. I don't like his type that murder innocent children like that...very low-scum of the earth) has no affiliations or "like" for Palin. Many anti-gumment peeps existed before Palin. In fact, Palin has hardly done ANYTHING to change the nature of those violent douches. Obama has done more to excit those people than Palin has, by an huge margin. (unsubstatianted claim, but it's almost a universal truth. Obama was, to no fault of his own, at the center of a lot of hate from the GOP side and violent statements before Palin came along.)

And, lol at your second point. Too true.

We do we find the plurality of Nihilists and Atheists in politics: Dems, GOPs, Libertarians, or Independents? If I were to take a stab, I'd say that most of them are Dems or Libertarians. Am I right? (No way to check for this political fact or is there?) We know that Atheists are more left-leaning, so it would appear that they would be Dems and Libs, a majority of the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon

First one is the Sarah Palin inciting violence.

Did she incite violence? Probably not. In fact, her ability to incite violence in that case would be so very small that it is almost negligible. Americans are more violent than most other industrialized nations.

Anyway, fact-check: did Sarah Palin support violence or did she oppose it like she claimed to have done last March?

Truth.


Palin DID say that she meant take up arms by voting at the ballot, but not actually do violent things.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/12/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-did-condemn-violence-march-campaign-ra/

So, she should be vindicated. I do believe someone pointed out that she was just trying to appeal to the redneck talk and sayings and not actually talking about guns. That appears to be the exact case, so whoever said that, deserves a cookie (I believe it was Robtard.)



That does not excuse her using that rhetoric, it is very possible, perhaps even likely that she does and will incite violence with it. Even if she puts a footnote of "Oh btw just metaphors, lulz"

irWwWKgkxbw

Multiple subject threads are not really the intent of these forums and are just confusing to those trying to find a discussion- please pick one subject and stick with it.

Closed.