See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:31 pm, englishqueen01 said:

   I merely said Palin is being inconsistent in when she chooses to assign blame to outside forces.

   Except she didn’t. She accused the media of engaging in the same behavior they said SHE did that caused the shooting.

2. #202
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:33 pm, chapoutier said:

   Except she didn’t.

   I still say she was, but even if you are right, that is still not remotely the same as laying blame on anyone on the right, which is what you just accused me of.

   She accused the media of engaging in the same behavior they said SHE did that caused the shooting.

   That is not a mutually exclusive statement.

3. #203
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:35 pm, DougT said:

   FWIW, I am familiar with the definitions of incite and cause. Though a little pedantic back and forth goes well with a cold IPA. Also, I never intended to use them in a legal sense, merely literal.

   If Sarah Palin is refuting (sp?) the claim that she has been accused of causing these crimes, then, well, uhm, how tough could that be? Sheesh, most everyone who is discussing this is not seriously considering that she caused this. It would hardly be worth Sarah’s time to respond to that.

   The majority of the attacks are that she has said or shown things that could incite the unhinged to violence. (That seems to be a spurious connection, I believe, that feels politically motivated.) But, if she is responding to these accusations, then she does make a mistake. She should not argue that her attackers are committing a post hoc fallacy and then proceed to make the same argumentative error. It’s just bad form.

   Other than that, I thought it was a damn fine speech.

4. #204
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:38 pm, chapoutier said:

   Though a little pedantic back and forth goes well with a cold IPA.

   Well, what doesn’t?

5. #205
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:42 pm, DougT said:

   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:38 pm, chapoutier said:
   Though a little pedantic back and forth goes well with a cold IPA.
   Well, what doesn’t?

   I’m guessing the reactions to my potential answers to that question.

6. #206
   On January 12th, 2011 at 6:49 pm, englishqueen01 said:

   I still say she was, but even if you are right, that is still not remotely the same as laying blame on anyone on the right, which is what you just accused me of.

   Then I apologize.

   I just find this whole debate infuriating. I am disgusted with the accusations that implicate not only Palin – but ever conservative, me included – in this crime.

   In a larger context, the new meme is Sarah Palin’s “injecting herself” into the AZ shooting story. Nevermind the better part of 4 days has been contributing to connecting her to it, at least on the part of the media.

7. #207
   On January 12th, 2011 at 7:42 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

   Palin’s statement was well thought out and beautifully presented. Her choice of the words “blood libel” were brilliant and deliberate.

   At this point, the left looks like the fools they really are. They try to portray themselves as the intelligencia but I consider them to be the emotogencia (emotional not rational).

8. #208
   On January 12th, 2011 at 7:42 pm, Yashmak said:

   I just find this whole debate infuriating. I am disgusted with the accusations that implicate not only Palin – but ever conservative, me included – in this crime.

   – englishqueen

   I share your disgust. Here’s what we know:

   1) Neither party has cornered the market on inflammatory and/or ill-advised rhetoric over time, or even just in recent years.

   2) There currently exists exactly ZERO evidence that Loughton was motivated by anything other than obsession with what he perceived as dishonesty of politicians in general, and an obsession with Giffords in particular that has gone on since 2007 (before the Tea Party groups even existed.

   3) The attempts by both sides to claim that we need to step back from the inflammatory rhetoric, while simultaneously engaging in yet more blame-casting, is disgusting.

   Sarah Palin, like Krugman all the other politicos engaged in this furious carnival of idiocy, surely have examined the polls, which indicate the majority of Americans (and even the plurality of liberals) do not believe Loughton was motivated by the rhetoric of EITHER party. Surely with that bit of information, they could rest comfortably in the knowledge that failure to throw in their two-cents on the matter wouldn’t cost them.

   But instead, they saw a chance to make political hay from this episode, and are jumping at that chance. It’s saddening to watch it play out.

   Hell, if they found a signed, dated, and freakin’ notarized note in Loughton’s room stating “I chose to do this directly because of inciteful and inflammatory rhetoric from BOTH parties“, these same pundits and politicians wouldn’t waste a MOMENT reflecting on those words, but would instead likely be jamming up the internet trying to be the first to claim “Well, maybe so, but the other side was MORE responsible.“

9. #209
   On January 12th, 2011 at 7:53 pm, chapoutier said:

   Yashmak is, as always, a welcome voice of reason.

   In a larger context, the new meme is Sarah Palin’s “injecting herself” into the AZ shooting story. Nevermind the better part of 4 days has been contributing to connecting her to it, at least on the part of the media.

   In the spirit of civil debate, I will agree with this.

10. #210
    On January 12th, 2011 at 8:46 pm, frontierguy said:

    LOL, the liberal defeat. Always the same. Situation happens, then accusations made, finger pointing, yelling loudly, then when liberals realize they wrote checks that can’t be cashed, well, it was both sides. The political climate was disgusting and both sides were just as bad. Does anyone here honestly believe the situation would be the same had this psychotic been proven to be an avid listener of conservative talk radio? Absolutely not. If he was found to be an avid reader of Glen Beck and not Karl Marx, would a big deal be made of that? Yeah, you bet. The liberals will slither off, no lessons learned and use the same tactics the next time something happens.

11. #211
    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:13 pm, corkie said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 6:35 pm, DougT said:

    FWIW, I am familiar with the definitions of incite and cause. Though a little pedantic back and forth goes well with a cold IPA. Also, I never intended to use them in a legal sense, merely literal.

    What did you intend them to mean?

12. #212
    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:34 pm, longhorn734 said:

    I just find this whole debate infuriating. I am disgusted with the accusations that implicate not only Palin – but ever conservative, me included – in this crime.

    Now you know what it’s like to be a Muslim in the post 9/11 world.

13. #213
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:14 pm, frontierguy said:

    Now you know what it’s like to be a Muslim in the post 9/11 world.

    Hardly, the Ft. Hood shooting is a great example of how we were told to wait for all of the information to come out and not jump to conclusions, while the media jumped to all kinds of conclusions with Loughner, with no asking of restraint from the government.

    After 9/11, there were many accusations of Islamaphobia from the population, none were substantiated. Truth is, Americans are not out Muslim bashing like we were told. I get where you are trying to go, but it does not apply to this thread. This is about how the media went batsh*t crazy over Palin and there was nothing to the story. I am not a Palin fan, I have no problem with her either, but she is owed an apology.

14. #214
    On January 12th, 2011 at 11:36 pm, longhorn734 said:

    Absolutely, she’s owed an apology. But she’s also a hypocrite in saying that “acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own” while simultaneously demonizing Muslims and standing strong against the Ground Zero cultural center. The 9/11 hijackers committed an act of monstrous criminality, not Muslims.

    And I’d be happy to share very well documented cases of Islamophobia with you if you’d like. There’s no honor in comparing discriminatory practices, so I don’t feel the need to say one group is discriminated more than another, but ignoring criminal acts doesn’t make them go away.

15. #215
    On January 13th, 2011 at 12:05 am, frontierguy said:

    But she’s also a hypocrite in saying that “acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own” while simultaneously demonizing Muslims and standing strong against the Ground Zero cultural center.

    YAWN!! This is old and tired. Been there, blogged about that. Find a new site to complain about your cause or wait for a thread here that brings this old subject up.

16. #216
    On January 13th, 2011 at 12:43 am, longhorn734 said:

    I’m sorry? The hostess blogs about comments made by Sarah Palin, and I’m commenting on the comments made by Sarah Palin. I didn’t ask you to respond to me, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and make loud noises, that’s OK, but you look foolish insinuating that the comment is irrelevant.

17. #217
    On January 13th, 2011 at 8:03 am, Roland said:

    The hostess blogs about comments made by Sarah Palin, and I’m commenting on the comments made by Sarah Palin.

    Sure you are, but you did it without reading the comments. We already kicked the crap out of your absurd talking point when Chapoutier tried to float it.

    Palin did not contradict herself except in the minds of hyper-partisans continuing to try to advance an unwarranted attack against her.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, but guys like you and Chapoutier just don’t roll that way.

18. #218
    On January 13th, 2011 at 8:43 am, chapoutier said:

    Sure you are, but you did it without reading the comments. We already kicked the crap out of your absurd talking point when Chapoutier tried to float it.

    Palin did not contradict herself except in the minds of hyper-partisans continuing to try to advance an unwarranted attack against her.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, but guys like you and Chapoutier just don’t roll that way.

    Poor, sad little Roland. So many delusions floating around in one tiny brain.

    If Laughner wasn’t enough to convince us as a society that we need to take diagnosing and treating mental health disorders more seriously, surely your posts will provide the tipping point.

19. #219
    On January 13th, 2011 at 8:47 am, Roland said:

    On January 13th, 2011 at 8:43 am, chapoutier said:

    And still no shame at all. Only more adolescent bile.

20. #220
    On January 13th, 2011 at 8:53 am, chapoutier said:

    And still no shame at all. Only more adolescent bile.

    Please. That was at least age of majority bile, if not late 20′s early 30′s bile.

    Yet another thing in the looong litany of things you are so very very wrong about. Including Palin’s inherent and undeniable inconsistency.

21. #221
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:08 am, longhorn734 said:

    Roland, bravo on equating every “I disagree” comment with each other. I’m sorry that your mind works in binary.

    I was not saying there was an inconsistency in her comments.

    I am saying that she’s a hypocrite for saying every criminal acts alone, then simultaneously blaming the entire Muslim community for 9/11.

    I agree with most of her statement yesterday, and as I said before, agree that she’s owed an apology for the smears of the last week.

22. #222
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am, Roland said:

    I am saying that she’s a hypocrite for saying every criminal acts alone, then simultaneously blaming the entire Muslim community for 9/11.

    She did not blame the entire Muslim community for 9/11.

    That mosque in NY is a Victory Mosque. You don’t see that because there is something wrong with your brain. It is too obvious it is a Victory Mosque for any other explanation for your mental blindness to suffice.

23. #223
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:25 am, Roland said:

    And, btw, at a time when any decent person should be attacking the likes of Mark Moulitsas and Paul Krugman and ‘Sheriff’ Dubnik, you and Chap continue to pound away at Sarah Palin.

    You and your ilk simply have no shame.

24. #224
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am, granite said:

    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am, Roland said:

    There are those who will always see the 1400 years of muslim aggression and barbarity as the fault of Western civilization; and who will never admit that islam is incompatible with civilization.

25. #225
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:48 am, granite said:

    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:25 am, Roland said:

    You are stating the obvious, which needs to be restated and restated, loud and clear, over and over and over again.

26. #226
    On January 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am, chapoutier said:

    You are stating the obvious, which needs to be restated and restated, loud and clear, over and over and over again.

    Well, the right is certainly good at stating things loudly and repeatedly, if nothing else.

27. #227
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am, longhorn734 said:

    There are those who will always see the 1400 years of muslim aggression and barbarity as the fault of Western civilization; and who will never admit that islam is incompatible with civilization.

    I’m a Muslim and think I’m pretty well civilized…

    That mosque in NY is a Victory Mosque. You don’t see that because there is something wrong with your brain.

    No, I don’t see that because I actually attend mosque prayers. But thanks for proving my point – because there are Muslim extremists, therefore I must also be praying at “victory mosques” all over the country…

    You may have found a loophole though. I’m not sure I can label you a hypocrite if you’re not interested in facts.

28. #228
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:09 am, Yashmak said:

    And, btw, at a time when any decent person should be attacking the likes of Mark Moulitsas and Paul Krugman and ‘Sheriff’ Dubnik, you and Chap continue to pound away at Sarah Palin.

    You and your ilk simply have no shame.

    – Roland

    They have ALL acted shamefully in the wake of this tragedy, as I described above. But apparently, pointing that out makes one a liberal.

29. #229
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:14 am, Roland said:

    But thanks for proving my point – because there are Muslim extremists, therefore I must also be praying at “victory mosques” all over the country…

    I was talking about the mosque in NY at Ground Zero. The one Palin objected to. She was not objecting to any other mosque.

    You, however, immediately figure the objection to a mosque at the site where 19 muslims, in the name of Islam, massacred thousands of Americans must be the exact same as an objection to any mosque anywhere in the country.

    There really is something wrong with your brain.

30. #230
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:19 am, chapoutier said:

    You, however, immediately figure the objection to a mosque at the site where 19 muslims, in the name of Islam, massacred thousands of Americans must be the exact same as an objection to any mosque anywhere in the country.

    It is inasmuch as it is not based on any reason or law.

31. #231
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:21 am, Roland said:

    They have ALL acted shamefully in the wake of this tragedy, as I described above. But apparently, pointing that out makes one a liberal.

    Drawing grossly false moral equivalencies usual does indicate a strongly leftist outlook.

32. #232
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:23 am, longhorn734 said:

    You, however, immediately figure the objection to a mosque at the site where 19 muslims, in the name of Islam, massacred thousands of Americans must be the exact same as an objection to any mosque anywhere in the country.

    I was too – the mosque(s) that are already there, right near Ground Zero (I worked at Liberty Place) and the mosque that I spent two years attending services at.

    There’s nothing wrong with my brain, but thanks for playing.

33. #233
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:25 am, Roland said:

    It is inasmuch as it is not based on any reason or law.

    It is what it is. Every single violent jihadist on the planet knows it’s a victory mosque. If you cannot see what is so clearly in your face, there is something wrong with your brain.

34. #234
    On January 13th, 2011 at 10:29 am, chapoutier said:

    Every single violent jihadist on the planet knows it’s a victory mosque.

    Wow. You’ve polled them all? Maybe instead of asking them about the “Victory Mosque”, you should have ID’d them for our troops. Or been a manly man and taken them out yourself.

35. #235
    On January 13th, 2011 at 12:23 pm, Yashmak said:

    Drawing grossly false moral equivalencies usual does indicate a strongly leftist outlook.

    – Roland

    Wow, it’s a good thing I didn’t do that then!

36. #236
    On January 13th, 2011 at 12:29 pm, corkie said:

    longhorn734, would you be against opening a gay bar next to a new cultural center which may be built at the proposed location?

37. #237
    On January 13th, 2011 at 1:54 pm, Roland said:

    Wow, it’s a good thing I didn’t do that then!

    Of course that is precisely what you did.

    Sarah Palin, like Krugman all the other politicos engaged in this furious carnival of idiocy …

    You equated Palin pointing out the blood libel made against her by the likes of Krugman with Krugman’s blood libel of her.

    What you did was vile. So naturally Chapoutier immediately gave you a high five for it.

38. #238
    On January 13th, 2011 at 2:01 pm, longhorn734 said:

    Corkie – no, I wouldn’t. I haven’t been to that area in a couple of years, but when I went to prayer, I walked past many bars, and I know at least one strip club. I don’t recall seeing a gay bar specifically there, but there was one on the end of my street.

    I’m not sure why anyone thinks that someone open minded enough to move to NY would be offended by these things, when there’s one of everything on any given city block.

39. #239
    On January 13th, 2011 at 2:50 pm, Yashmak said:

    Of course that is precisely what you did.

    – Roland

    No it’s not. I claimed they were both participating in the “furious carnival of idiocy” which has followed this tragic event, and that both have sought to make political hay out of this incident. In no other way did I compare what they had said. Nowhere did I attempt to quantitatively compare the moral magnitude of Krugman’s accusations with Palin’s unnecessary jumping into the fray, ostensibly to defend herself from accusations that even the plurality of liberals (per Rasmussen poll) agree are baseless. I clearly asserted this already.

    You are twisting my words, in order to invent something you can label ‘vile’.

40. #240
    On January 13th, 2011 at 4:02 pm, chapoutier said:

    What you did was vile. So naturally Chapoutier immediately gave you a high five for it.

    Yashmak is consistently one of the most thoughtful, even headed posters on here. Much more so than me and light years ahead of you.

    But I promise, next time you say something intelligent, I will high five you too. I may even toss in a cookie. On a related note, not too terribly concerned about having to run to the bakery anytime soon.

41. #241
    On January 14th, 2011 at 10:15 am, philmon said:

    The problem with “Blood Libel” isn’t that it was misused.

    The problem, as always, is that it was Sarah Palin who said it.

    And it isn’t just lefties. There are columnists on the right that I have a lot of respect for that have jumped on the bandwagon. I think? they’re trying to score points with their mainly leftist colleagues. But some of them really do seem to, like their leftist colleagues, have a knee-jerk negative reaction to Palin.

    As I told Deb Saunders (who I like! Also one of the more conservative columnists who doesn’t like Palin) … one gets the feeling that if Sarah Palin did a public service anouncment encouraging kids to study hard and eat their vegetables it would be scoured for somthing in it to criticize.

    Or, as a friend of mine on another blog put it:

    “I honestly think you’d have trouble getting a liberal to agree that the sun rises in the east if Sarah Palin was on record claiming so (typical responses would probably include “only somebody as stupid as her would need to say so” or “what is ‘east’ but a convention of language anyway?”, depending on the context and the pretentiousness of the liberal). “

42. #242
    On January 14th, 2011 at 2:15 pm, Yashmak said:

    I’m sure this was already on her itinerary well before the tragedy, but Palin is going to face accusations of being a bit tone-deaf if she makes her planned appearance at a massive gun show later this month.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47612.html

    That sorta thing just feeds her critics.

43. #243
    On January 14th, 2011 at 7:41 pm, Roland said:

    That sorta thing just feeds her critics.

    Riiight. Palin is the one who is tone deaf. It’s Palin just feeding her critics there that’s the problem, not that her critics are reality challenged hypocrites.

    Got it.

44. #244
    On January 14th, 2011 at 10:17 pm, Blackstone said:

    It’s Palin just feeding her critics there that’s the problem, not that her critics are reality challenged hypocrites.

    And note too that he doesn’t have the stones to actually criticize Palin directly for attending the gun show, but instead hides behind what other unspecified “critics” will say about it.

    At least Chap acknowledges his bias.

45. #245
    On January 14th, 2011 at 10:21 pm, Blackstone said:

    And speaking of the Victory Mosque, I have to wonder what the reaction would be from the principled left-wing defenders of that monstrosity if a Tea Party organization were to open a new headquarters near where Loughner shot those people.

46. #246
    On January 15th, 2011 at 7:30 am, MtsEdge said:

    Blackstone #255, the glaring difference is that the Tea Party hq @ the Loughner shooting site is a non sequitur. The “Victory Mosque” is directly related and resulting from the Muslim attack on that site.

47. #247
    On January 15th, 2011 at 7:30 am, MtsEdge said:

    should have said “would be” a non sequitur

48. #248
    On January 16th, 2011 at 2:37 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Palin is going to face accusations of being a bit tone-deaf if she makes her planned appearance at a massive gun show later this month.

    and we have a prez who uses an event like the Tucson shootings to have a pep rally. Tone deaf? Truth blind.

49. #249
    On January 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm, Yashmak said:

    And note too that he doesn’t have the stones to actually criticize Palin directly for attending the gun show, but instead hides behind what other unspecified “critics” will say about it.

    At least Chap acknowledges his bias.

    – blackstone

    It’s kinda sad that you feel you have to project a bias onto me that I don’t actually have. I couldn’t care less if she attends a gun show or not. I’ve attended dozens myself over the years. It’s not me she has to win over to have a chance against Obama. . .it’s the moderates, the women voters. . .and this kind of thing CAN’T play well with them.