The One Hundred and Twelfth

[Moderator]

Palin is just another politician. She is going to be just as inflammatory and deflecting as most other politicians. I don't see the point of trying to pin the massacre on her, unless the goal is to suppress freedom of speech. ESPECIALLY, since there is ZERO evidence connecting her to the shooter. If the facts reveal that they are connected, I will concede those facts, but I will not concede that it justifies suppression of free speech. I think Congresswoman Giffords would say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs

It's not about pinning the blame on her. This controversy should be about people, and particularly the news media and politicians, taking responsibility that what they say and do can have consequences and that so much of it in the news assaulting us on a daily basis has had a negative effect on our society as a whole. And IMO, the news media is doing just that all over again by trying to deflect what has happened and absolve themselves of any responsibility. They are creating more red herrings to get people upset and instead of having meaningful discussions or trying to reverse the trend, we're feeding right into it all over again. Who's pulling the strings, folks?

[JohnDalglish]

liberal news sources.

Hi,

In a country where ALL news sources are ultimately responsible to share holders via Wall St. how CAN there be any such thing as a genuinely liberal news source?

'Money doesn't talk, it swears,
Obscenity? Who really cares?
Propaganda, all is phoney'.

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Sir, I wasn't dancing and I'm sorry if you thought
It was an agenda I pursue, for it is not.
Not unless you mean, of course, that violence never works
And that it is hateful speech that motivates these jerks.

You mentioned Palin in every verse, your ideology clear.
You shouted Palin is to blame and everyone should hear.
Your claim that violence never works is something of a reach
As your poem's a case of violence-motivated hateful speech.

[CorbinKale]

I'd watched CNN, NBC, and listened to NPR. No idea if CNN is liberal minded as I don't normally watch it but NBC seems to report both sides. What they're reporting has him all over the place. No offense, but instead of going straight for the left leaning nut, you might have taken your own advice about not putting comments that slant to one side.

I presented several alternative possibilities, NOT just one side. I advocated looking at the facts. No hypocrisy here.

[Moderator]

I presented several alternative possibilities, NOT just one side. I advocated looking at the facts. No hypocrisy here.

Not until after you'd gone the left-leaning nut route. Your first comment was:

"While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, ....."

You did give other alternatives but not at the time I responded to your post. I applaud your comments to explore other possibilities for his motives. My first response was a knee-jerk reaction to the use of left-leaning nut, particularly in light of what I'd heard that would not place him in that camp. And hypocrisy was exactly my reason for responding to that particular term as I hoped that if you were aware of that information about what Laughner had said about the government and the Constitution, you might take it into consideration as it directly conflicts what is often generalized about how liberals think.

[CorbinKale]

It's not about pinning the blame on her. This controversy should be about people, and particularly the news media and politicians, taking responsibility that what they say and do can have consequences and that so much of it in the news assaulting us on a daily basis has had a negative effect on our society as a whole. And IMO, the news media is doing just that all over again by trying to deflect what has happened and absolve themselves of any responsibility. They are creating more red herrings to get people upset and instead of having meaningful discussions or trying to reverse the trend, we're feeding right into it all over again. Who's pulling the strings, folks?

I disagree. It should be about taking responsibility for our actions. Meaningful discussions are impossible if we suppress free speech. Who's pulling the strings? To answer that, we have to discover who would benefit by suppressing the free exchange of ideas. Such person(s) would probably not let such a crisis go to waste. No, they would use it as a lever to impose their ideology of suppression. Who could they be?

[CorbinKale]

Not until after you'd gone the left-leaning nut route. Your first comment was:

"While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, ....."

You did give other alternatives but not at the time I responded to your post. I applaud your comments to explore other possibilities for his motives. My first response was a knee-jerk reaction to the use of left-leaning nut, particularly in light of what I'd heard that would not place him in that camp. And hypocrisy was exactly my reason for responding to that particular term as I hoped that if you were aware of that information about what Laughner had said about the government and the Constitution, you might take it into consideration as it directly conflicts what is often generalized about how liberals think.

Such is the nature of a moderated message board. I do take into consideration his views on the Constitution, and the 'government mind control grammar' interpretaion is not consistent with left OR right. It puts him squarely in the 'nut job' camp.

[Moderator]

Just posted a comment in this thread that addresses my feelings about that. BIG, HUGE difference between suppressing free speech and being ethically responsible for what is said when exercising that right.

[JohnDalglish]

Who could they be?

Hi,

Well, no media outlet risks offending its advertisers, and I speak from experience.

So 'they' could be whoever holds the purse strings.

Or as we say here 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

Long days and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Palin is just another politician. She is going to be just as inflammatory and deflecting as most other politicians. I don't see the point of trying to pin the massacre on her, unless the goal is to suppress freedom of speech. ESPECIALLY, since there is ZERO evidence connecting her to the shooter. If the facts reveal that they are connected, I will concede those facts, but I will not concede that it justifies suppression of free speech. I think Congresswoman Giffords would say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs

I'm not "pinning" anything "on" Palin, she has the right to say whatever she wants, and I'll defend her right to do so, as I have the right to exclaim, that I believe she has at least some culpability in promoting an atmosphere, helping cause the death of a nine year old, who was interested in politics because she wanted to help people at that tender young age...period!
Now am I right, well I think so, but then who really cares, but I will say this, I can make a better argument of that, than she can about practically anything that has come out of her mouth since she hit the national stage.
Corbin, you & I "argue", and I know you enjoy it as much as me, but Palin doesn't even "debate", she expounds a philosophic rhetoric, she herself doesn't even comprehend...she's part shock jock, part talkin' monkey, and she's been cashing in slingin' her feces wherever an organ grinder with a tin cup can be found.
This "politician" has never looked at a big picture in her life, unless she was in it, and looking glorious.
She obviously hasn't any problem labeling a fellow snot, who puts out our most secret, basically secret gossip, online, a terrorist, based on what she's been told by bigger thinkers than she's capable, of what might happen (as all this far right rhetoric always is, a warning of what might happen, that is if all of us stupid morons don't listen and be afraid, be very afraid!...yeah well, look at us now), but our Sarah will not say, 'Hey, some folks are really actually dead, this isn't a what if, a what could happen, this is real, so maybe I should do a re-think and just maybe tone down my moneymaker"...oh no, she has her rights, as terrorizing as they are, big or small, intentional or not...talk about the very definition of distasteful!
She isn't "just another politician", she's an inflammatory hateful sideshow with her very own nationally broadcast spotlight, with no real allegiance to anyone other than herself, her bank account, and illusions of pop politico grandeur...in other words, a freak show in the, they ain't no biz like showbiz, parlance...successful at it, oh yes, but a freak show none the less.
Step right up, see little idjit, she walks, she talks smack, she'll snag your thin dime and then ask for a dollar!!!