Actually, she was dead on for her reason to use it, she is being vilified for something that she had no direct part in.

 

As I was saying, you give her a pass, while condemning her critics. My first assessment of you and your motives were correct.

 

I agree with being too ignorant to know what she was saying. And as many have pointed out the overall tone and message was that she, Sarah Palin, was the real tragic victim of the shooting in Arizona.

This one also really hurt her because Palin's reaction and statement is being contrast with President Obama's and proving why he's the president and she never will be.

 

I've seldom heard such an angry, impassioned, self-righteous defense of the right to spew vitriol.

 

You are an airhead.

Do you honestly think that she had something to do with the shooter acting out.

 

Bullshit, you never read her words.

 

I have no idea. Neither do you. I never accused her of that. I accused her of helping to create a climate of hate that has the POTENTIAL to spur people like this into action.

 

But, you do not give credit to the current administrations efforts to ramrod legislation through without concern for the opponents of that legislation. Man anger words were used by Obama when the Republicans did not sign on to his pet project.

That action plus the closed door negotiations, pissed off a whole lot of people.

 

Lying fucking phony

http://www.buzzstation.net/2011/01/sarah-palin-blood-libel-statement-full.html
​

 

Only a cynic would consider that a composition of focus on making the author out as the victim.

It was a tribute to all of those who suffered wounds, death and the pains of seeing their loved ones gunned down.

She was right to call out those who sought to place the blame on anyone but the perpetrator of the heinous act.

 

It doesn't matter she has less of a chance of being one of the 2 party candidates for President than a snowball has of surviving in Hell.

 

We have remedies for those kinds of policy disagreements in this country. We have elections, and voting. Are you suggesting that passing legislation you don't like is grounds for advocating violence?

 

Who advocated violence? Did Sarah Palin?

 

You seemed to be saying that because Obama passed legislation you don't like, people have the right to be angry, and by implication, the right to advocate or resort to violence. That seems to be the subtext of almost everything the right wing says these days.

Palin can protest all she wants that when she uses crosshair imagery, when she calls on people to "reload" and "take up arms", that she's really only talking about voting. But I think she chooses those words very carefully, and very intentionally.

 

Why do you assume that one who is angry will advocate violence. Perhaps you do not understand the vernacular.

 

She looks like a duck, etc.

 

Well, now we hear that Palin is so concerned about the political damage she's suffering that she's going to subject herself to an interview.....

...with Sean Hannity on Fox News. How courageous.

 

Was that a typo? Didn't you mean outrageous?

 

I was engaging in my usual finely-tuned sarcasm.

 

I would suggest that she let it go.