luv2increase, on 9-Nov 2008, 04:09 PM, said:
suspire, on 9-Nov 2008, 04:04 PM, said:
There are plenty of ways of making an argument. There are also plenty of ways of influencing a crowd. If you want to white-wash Palin's behavior, go for it. But even McCain finally put his foot down and told her to dial down the hate, as the article pointed out. You can conduct yourself with the decorum and dignity of a candidate for the Office of the Vice President or you can conduct yourself as the head of a lynch mob.
Since when is speaking the truth, hate???
"Influencing the crowd"??? Almost like your title "Secret Service Links Death Threats...to Sarah Palin" as if she ordered them or something to take place.
That is just utterly pitiful. You should try and get a job with the NY Times or something. Or, maybe you could gather and print out all your posts, and see if you can get a job working with Obama?
If she had told them to go out and kill him, she'd have been arrested. That does not mean she does not imply negative things, that can be picked up by the radical elements of her base and taken as a "go ahead" to take action. White Supremacist leaders whose followers go off and kill have often shielded themselves from legal action by saying they did not order their followers to go kill anyone; it is an effective legal defense, but does not absolve them for the blood on their hands.
If Palin wanted to, she could have run a much cleaner campaign and focused on the issues, and immediately cut down any of her followers who screamed "terrorist" and "kill him" in the audience. But she didn't.
That said, I realize arguing with you is useless. You are positive that Palin is a great lady, a true patriot, yada yada yada. Fine and well, but I have only to point towards your own posts on here, which parrot Palin's talking points, filled with such hate, as an example of how easily a certain type of mind is influenced by the wrong type of rhetoric.
I had posted this article in the hopes that it might wake up some of the conservatives to a different type of thinking, that in the future, the discourse would be more intelligent and productive, but I see that it is a lost cause.