Gifford was among those in Arizona whose offices were targeted with vandalism and threats during the health care debate in 2009.
(via @nytjim)Giffords was also one of the lawmakers Sarah Palin “set her sights on” in the Palin PAC infographic below (takebackthe20.com). The congresswoman and others are targeted with simulated gun sights on a map of the United States.
Despite putting a “target” on Giffords and asking her fellow nutjobs to find a “solution” to the congresswoman, Palin had this to say about the tragedy:
My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona.
On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.
Michael Moore asked this via Twitter:
If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking.
Update Jan 9, 2010:
According to ABC News Palin denies “she meant the graphic over the districts to look like a gun sight.”
Rebecca Mansour, a spokesperson for SarahPac said, “We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights.”
Breaking News! The link to Palin has been found. The libs are going to be ecstatic over this exciting new information.
The Arizona shooter is a registered independent.
Sarah Palin’s husband is a registered independent.
Palin caused the shooting. Case closed.
Here’s a news flash: whoever uses a gun to “solve” any issue is not only mentally unhinged, he (sic) is also a right wing nut = by definition.
Left Wing by definition is against guns.
Left Wing by definition is for compromise.
Left Wing by definition is for social safety net.
Right Wing by definition is just the opposite.
So, dear WingNuts, people are “complicated” and may have some characteristic or another of any part of the chicken you might want to name, but GUN PLAY is Right Wing all the Way: by definition.
Sorry but thats the way the clip empties. Now take your bullets and go home.
Bobbo, read the Progressive Climate of Hate Primer to get a view of the left-wing reality.
http://goo.gl/ihCXI
Left Wing vs Right Wing by definition:
Back in the day, some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girliemen.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
JB–thanks for the link. I glanced at it, no need to read. Its right wing dogma/hate/talking points/spin to push any discussion about any issue into: “Why do you HATE…blah, blah, blah.”
I think Palin’s GUNSIGHT Campaign is as close to criminal conduct as you can get while remaining legal. The leaders in her party are complicit in not condemning her for such language, but they pander for the same votes she is, so they are all one in the same.
But I don’t hate Palin–I just think she is wrong, stupid, and close to criminal.
There is no reason for any reasonable, thoughtful, non-hating liberal like myself to read anything premised on any other idea.
Fun to actually “see” how Malkin makes her bones. See, I don’t hate Malkin either, and even with her anti-evolution views, I actually almost kinda like Coulter.
Hate is for simpletons. Another right wing characteristic: by definition.
JB–liberal men turned into women? Ha, ha. Come out of the closet JB into the light.
Inside track to those late night campfire fantasies. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Bobbo, I figured you would just glance at the link. Anything that illustrates your distortion of the truth is not worth reading.
If Hate is for simpletons, why do you rant and seethe so much?
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he feels that no one should have one.
JB–you ask why do I rant and seethe so much? Because “I care.” I think the issues I do rant and seethe about are actually destroying America. I think our gun policy kills too many innocent people (drug policy too) and the “idea” that guns protect is mostly untrue. Not all the time untrue, just mostly untrue.
Turning to my LIEberTARDian views, I think the deficit spending engaged in by both parties but championed by the PUKES is killing our country all the time, not just most of the time like the gun policies.
So, it bothers me people can hold views that hurt ME as well as themselves. I don’t know why you hold a philosophical notion above everyday experiential reality. Reality is supposed to inform us. There really is no better example of this stupidity than: “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Its non-think written large.
So, I metaphorically take my gun out on this blog calling people names. Names vs bullets. Yes, I’m a terrible person. But I come fully loaded with ideas/arguments/links as well.
International Debt Financing will stop the USA in our deficit ways, that reality will be forced on us. Evidently, no amount of murder/mayhem by firearms will convince enough Americans that our gun policy is rational. Even a death in the family from a drive buy will only be seen as a reason to arm more thoroughly. Thats how idiotic the idea is. It would be different if guns actually protected the citizenry from our political overlords, but they don’t. See Katrina for the most recent direct dramatic example of that==or just go to your local airport any day of the week.
Silly Hoomans.
All of the negativity of Democrats has now caused Abe Lincoln to be assassinated. Ergo, all of the Democrats should have their free speech taken away from them.
I rant and seethe because Puke leaders like Polenty just came on and said that illegal gun use is terrible but that the incident should not be used to chill “passionate speech.”
He says he wouldn’t post a picture with the gun sights but he still defends the practice of it as “passionate speech.”
The hypocrisy makes me want to PUKE!
The whole and entire reason that SPEECH should be free is because speech has CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!
CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!
And when the speech is less about ideas, and more about killing people, its not free speech, its incitement to violence.
Know the difference,
See the difference,
Vote all Pukes out of office.
Damn. bobbo added one more comment and the “Number of the Comments Beast” which is 222 has been defiled. You just had to break out your caps lock one more time, didn’t you?
OK everyone, pony up. We need 444 more comments to fix this.
The real issue here isn’t left vs. right, it’s extremists vs. sanity. Just because this guy may not be a right-winger doesn’t mean he doesn’t resonate with the fear-, race-, and hatemongering being spewed by right-wing extremist personalities with such vitriol incessantly on faux news and talk radio.
Palin did not call this guy up and tell him to shoot somebody, but her pandering to extremists using threatening language against fellow citizens who just happen not to agree with her sets up an environment where people begin to think that violence, insults, and threats are how a democracy is run.
Palin and her ilk (I include most of the talking heads on faux news as well as Limbauugh and the other rodeo clowns of reality on talk radio) don’t want their followers to kill other people, of course not. Nobody really wants to kill those they do not agree with. However, by their own words it is obvious that they do want to create a threatening atmosphere that stifles dissent.
The problem is that you cannot constantly threaten violence as intimidation to your foes (for example, there is no other reason than to intimidate others to bring a weapon to a poitical event) without creating an environment where violence is acceptable as a tool and intimidation is accepted as a policy.
We forget that our “opponents” are fellow citizens who hopefully love the country as well. We must reduce the level of hate and fear in our rhetoric and stop wedge-issue politics. But sadly I believe that will probably never happen.
Oh yes bobbo, there is a line. Admittedly I’d have to think about your example. You think it’s a no-brainer, and I agree, except the New York Times did almost the same thing with Rumsfeld, pointing out the location of security cameras.
smartalix….painting the left as hating the USA is their bread and butter. Wedge issues win elections.
History is likely to show Rush and Newt as most responsible for a separated and eventually much weaker United States, for heavily advocating these two tenets of conservative political strategy.
As long as you are putting up hypotheticals, how about a Senate candidate running an ad where he picks up a rifle and shoots his opponent?
So Fusion tells us that he can’t be left-wing because it is impossible to read the communist manifesto and like it. Now if he said he didn’t like the communist manifesto, is that evidence that one is left-wing?
Is it possible that he is merely bragging about liking the book, and isn’t that evidence of being left-wing?
For that matter isn’t Fusion doing the same thing?
Mike==you are the one avoiding simple truths. AND your “problem is obvious.” For whatever reason, you don’t like the “result” so you attack the truth of the causation.
You agree with my hypo “except” what about the NYT? You spout nonsense. My hypo correctly draws the line and such a post would be a violation of law NOT protected by Free Speech==and so would the NYT article if it went as far.
Do you see your manipulation, your back stepping just because you don’t like the consequences===and btw, why wouldn’t you want to think the NYT of being a criminal? Seems that should work for you?
Do you think it is appropriate to pose a hypo yourself before answering more concretely the one already posed to you?
Any ad showing anyone being shot is right on the border line. It would depend on what else is “said.” “Please don’t let this happen”===doesn’t fully cure the imagery but is legal. “Please provide a solution”==should land the jerk in jail, or mandatory mental counseling=====and isn’t that just exactly what too many Pukes need?
Foobar==I did realize there were cosmic points for stopping a thread on particular numbers, only for going “thru” those numbers. Sorry, I know what those hallmarks can mean to a real blogger.
Foobar–I DIDN’T realize. Bad spot for sticky keys.
Well it’s official. I can’t stand the right or the left in the US.
Well foobar–on review you are very critical of Palin and the right wing apologizers. I guess your devoted followers will have to pick up on your anti-Dem analysis from other threads?
Yes, both “parties” are repulsive pushing a plurality into the Independent Party. They too aren’t worth much when they swing elections based on low information and the emotional issues of the moment or when they throw an effective vote away on a third party.
While both bad, I hope you have realized over the past 8 years or so that the Pukes are in fact worse than the Dems. And voting the least objectionable party always has been what voting is all about, as a “voter” as opposed to a minion.
VOTE ALL PUKES OUT OF OFFICE.
On review, I’m very critical of a national political leader who’s rhetoric is difficult to distinguish from a crazy person who killed a 9 year old girl.
#223
bobbo,
First, there is no evidence that Palin’s speech had anything to do with the shooting. So, you are already jumping to conclusions.
Second, what you are suggesting is a profound abridgment of free speech rights. If anything you say at some point, months later is used to cause violence, you could be liable?! Salinger would have spent his life in court if that were the case. The Founders specifically did not want to permit this type of legal action just for speaking your mind even if it that speech is dumb, provocative or even incendiary.
You keep espousing a line between free speech and not. What precisely is your line such that we can use that rule for other cases? Show us how your rule would have applied to this case.
#225
smartalix,
If you think this is violence, you should read more about the founding of the country. Incendiary speech was quite common both before and after the Constitution was ratified. Yes, we need to learn to be more civil towards one another, but curtailing speech is not the solution.
Thomas, I completely argue against any freedom of speech. Dead on there. What I want is passionate (and heated) arguments about policy and the future.
What Palin has provided too often is easy entertainment and cheap shots to rile up a crowd. I want her to stay in the fight (even though her politics are a dead end) but show some leadership, not just try and score cheap shots to rile up a crowd.
So much for the media spin that the Tuscon shooting was triggered by Palin.
CBS poll today showed nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage.
Kiss the proposed new gun control laws goodbye.
235,
Thomas, I fervently believe in all of the 1st amendment. I only wish that our “leadership” would act like adults.
True, there has been incredible vitriol in our history. There has also been some terrible violence, against individuals as well as groups. I’d like to think we are more mature than that as a society by now.
There are people alive today who have attended lynchings, but we don’t lynch people anymore today. There are people today who use hate and fear and racism and greed as policy drivers, but that doesn’t mean we have to always act in that fashion.
Mature and intelligent behavior is not censorship.
smartalix gets it. Let me buy you a refreshing beverage!
I remember Ronald Reagan destroying his opponents and not using this type of crap. Certainly some in both parties play dirty tricks but the leaders set the tone of the debate.
The Senate ad I mentioned had the opponent’s ideas being stated and compared to Darth Vader, with him shooting different people in that little ship of his. Then at the end, the candidate picks up his rifle and shoots the ship out of the air. Say no to X’s crazy ideas.
Examples of using “Liberal Logic” to show how liberals are trying to incite violence… sometimes amongst themselves.
Liberals target Obama and Salazar over oil spill response and cover up: http://tinyurl.com/2egjd9r
Arizona Congresswoman shot, liberals target Palin, Tea Party: http://tinyurl.com/4o5za7s