Left Wing rhetoric becoming dangerous......

I feel the far left whackos in the national media need to think about what they are spewing & the damage it is causing. We already see that innocent people like Sarah Palin are receiving death threats as a result of the left wingers falsely connecting her to the shootings in Tuscon. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe a single shred of evidence has come out connecting the shooter to any conservative figure or dialogue. In fact most reports from people who knew him best call him "extreme liberal" and "anti-religion", hardly a description of conservatives.
This rush to judgement by the local sherrif & lib media is irresponsible & eroding civility in our country. These people propagating viscious lies will have blood on their hands if their vile, extreme lies lead to violence against their innocent targets.

 

Perhaps it would be well for both sides to moderate there Rhetoric and try talking in a civilized manner to each other Rather than play the blame game

 

I blame all the problems in the world on conspiracy theories. And bad grammar.

 

Whats your Granma done thats bad?

 

Mr. Moen has proven that Loughner was political. Loughner used the word "assassination". Moen defines assassination as a political killing and only as that. Therefore, Loughner's act was political. BTW, in order to reach that conclusion, you have to use his definition of assassination and no dictionary I could find limits it to a political killing. Yet, Moen is correct and everyone else is wrong. I have no idea how you can argue with that.

 

Sorry but I have to step in here Moen did not say that ALL Assasinations were Political, in fact that statement was made by you.

Post 48 (Moen)
He targeted a political figure for assassination. Not murder, but his word assassination. If someone shoots you and kills you, it is murder. If someone shoots the president or any politician it is an assassination. When you have the shooter himself labeling his own act in writing as an assassination...how is it not political? Clearly, the first component necessary for anyone to go through with an act of violence such as this one is an unstable personality. That does not preclude it from also being a political act. They are NOT mutually exclusive in other words.

Post 49 (Rim's)
First 4 I ran into. Which one is it that says ALL assassinations are political?

Not all Assasinations are Political but many are

 

I don't know how you read it, but how can one interpret "When you have the shooter himself labeling his own act in writing as an assassination...how is it not political?" so assassination is not solely political? And then he states "All you are able to argue here is what the dictionary definition or the open source definition is of one word." [post #50] i.e., it only means what he says it means and not what the dictionaries, et al say it means.

BTW, I would think that I have been around here long enough that you could at least get my name correct.

 

Sorry I thought you were rim's obviously I am wrong
Now back to your assertion that he said "all Assainations were political" he never said it no matter how you might like to think otherwise.
Things can be taken in many ways and if that is what you are doing then you should say so otherwise what you say might well be missinterpreted

 

I will repeat my question with a little better wording this time.

He said, "When you have the shooter himself labeling his own act in writing as an assassination...how is it not political?" I said that the dictionaries define it as political only sometimes. He then answered that the dictionaries are wrong. Please tell me where there is an out, by his words, that say an assassination can be non-political.

 

Sorry but once again you are saying he said something that he never did! He never stated that the dictionary was wrong What he said was

Post 50
All you are able to argue here is what the dictionary definition or the open source definition is of one word. That isn't a counter argument at all. Words can be defined in any number of ways especially in an open source like Wiki. Who cares! The only words that matter are the ones Loughner used and how he intended them. Don't give me dictionary definitions and think that it passses for a counter argument. Tell me why calling this guy crazy precludes him from being able to also commit a political assassination. You've done nothing but dodge here. If this is all you have, bow out man, bow out.

Within his response he actualy states and again I will quote it

"Words can be defined in any number of ways"

 

Now I am not arguing that he or you are correct what I am arguing is if you wish to use someones statements against them then at least get it right LOL This is how political rhetoric itself can be changed from what is actualy stated and meant to what someone might wish it to be.

 

Your words may work, but they do not jive with the conclusions. Every way I have tried to get him to admit that it may not political, he says I am wrong. You try it. I give up.

 

To blame Sarah Palin, blame the Tea Parties and blame talk radio is now proving to be seen as nonsense. The libs have tipped their hand. It is now clear that the left are and will remain eager to seize any tragedy or crisis in an effort to portray their political adversaries as rage-filled and dangerous lunatics.

 

Calm down man. The market will fix it. Besides, the right is coming back into power. All is well.

 

Hallelujah! I was worried for minute there, but now I see you might have a little bit of brains under that turban.

 

There ya go. Yay to extreme wealth and the RNC! Disaster averted.