Judy, my point about Palin taking the "cross-hairs" chart was just that....that it was embarrassing, that it could be perceived as career damaging and most of all, that it again highlights that she has willingly participated in this kind of ramping up of violent toned rhetoric before. That make her partially culpable in my book.
After hearing Rush on the radio every day since Obama was elected I've been worried sick about Obama's safety. I don't know if you ever listen to him but try it for a week. We all know what an inflated blowhard he is, but when you actually hear his spiel daily, it is even more alarming. (And no, I don't think Rush Limbaugh is personally plotting Obama's assassination. He's too busy counting his millions made from stirring his listeners up into a borderline violent state.) Just read a further clarification about the "shots fired" at Gifford's campaign HQ last fall. It was a brick through the window, not bullets. "Gifford has been the target of political threats before. In the wake of the health care vote, health care overhaul foes threw a brick through the front door of her Tucson district office, shattering the glass. A protester at a summer 2009 event -- similar to the meet-and-greet where she was shot Saturday -- accidentally dropped a gun on the floor. "We have never felt the need before to notify law enforcement when we hold these events," her spokesman said. When asked if she had any enemies, Giffords' father reportedly wept. "'Yeah,'" he told The New York Post. "'The whole Tea Party.'" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > No, of course not. Again, not the point. > > > > But it's these kind of statements and actions (putting the > > congressman in gun cross-hairs) that creates an atmosphere > > where the unhinged feel they have the OK to go ahead. > > Whether or not that's what motivated this particular guy is > > too early to tell. > > Totally agree with this paragraph and understood your > point from the start. > > > Let's not forget: this Congresswoman's headquarters was the > > subject of a gun fire attack during the campaign. > > Don't know if it was gunfire, but her headquarters was > vandalized right after her vote for the health care plan. > And she's had other threats on her life. > > > And what's with starting out a sentence with "So.." and > > following it up with an absurd statement "you're > > suggesting that Palin planned the assassination..." > > > > Don't go getting all Willy on us. > > Sorry, but I couldn't--and still can't--figure out what > you were suggesting by asking sarcastically if it was just > a "weird coincidence" that Palin had taken down the graphic. > *That's* the kind of thing Willytex would say. > > I mean, obviously she took it down because it was > *embarrassing* given today's events. It would be astonishing > if she *hadn't* taken it down. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You completely missed the point. > > > > > > > > Plus, I guess you missed Gifford being in gun crosshair > > > > sites on Palin's own site. Must have been a weird coincidence > > > > that Palin took that down immediately after the incident eh? > > > > > > So now you're suggesting Palin helped plan the assassination > > > attempt and took down the graphic because she didn't want > > > anybody to connect her with it? > > > > > > Or maybe she took it down because the attempt wasn't successful? > > > > > > Joe... >
