Death threats to Palin and her family

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxrac said:
Even is revenge when people is pleased to do for just fun like pie throwing or water balloon during regular day, not about political?
Click to expand...
I guess it's OK if both parties are "playing" and accept it, such as student or sibling pranks amongst themselves. That's not political.
 
Reba said:
Maybe you don't understand why it's offensive but it is, and the people who use it do so purposely to denigrate people of the Tea Party movement.

I wouldn't use any f-words to describe liberals, no matter what they do or say.
Click to expand...

Such as Fox? :lol:
 
kokonut said:
Note, I said over a political disagreement doesn't give anyone the right to throw a pie or water balloon at Obama. That is an attack on the president. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...

so throw it at wax-version of Obama
 
Please do count my "Aye" in.

Wishing physical harm upon another person based upon their opinions shows flawed logic; something the person truly needs to re-think their priorities especially when he/she is young and has a lot going in their life.
 
Tousi said:
Show me where I have said that about anyone and don't bring up Rush as that was taken out of context. :D
Click to expand...

oh that wasn't for you ;)
 
Jiro said:
so is wishing one to fail.

:hmm:
Click to expand...

Nah, I think you can hope a policy fails because you believe it will damage the country without hating the person who enacted the policy.
 
kokonut said:
Right.

So far the people who said "aye" that it's wrong to issue threats or commit to the damage or destruction of properties relating to U.S. politicians. This includes any form of physical attacks which is implied here.

Reba
Tousi
Kokonut
PFH
Txgolfer
Banjo
Dgirl101
Saywhatkid
Click to expand...
Please add KarissaMann and Mrs. Bucket. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Nah, I think you can hope a policy fails because you believe it will damage the country without hating the person who enacted the policy.
Click to expand...

to wish the policy to fail, one wishes the creator to fail... because any other policy he creates... it's similar in concept/philosophy
 
Jiro said:
to wish the policy to fail, one wishes the creator to fail... because any other policy he creates... it's similar in concept/philosophy
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Suppose someone you love dearly plans to do something you believe to be severely harmful to others. If you want that plan to fail in order to protect people, it doesn't mean you have stopped loving that person.
 
Jiro said:
to wish the policy to fail, one wishes the creator to fail... because any other policy he creates... it's similar in concept/philosophy
Click to expand...

I don't think so; the most harm I could/would do to him/her would be to vote for someone else.
 
Reba said:
No, it isn't.

Suppose someone you love dearly plans to do something you believe to be severely harmful to others. If you want that plan to fail in order to protect people, it doesn't mean you have stopped loving that person.
Click to expand...

Tousi said:
I don't think so; the most harm I could/would do to him/her would be to vote for someone else.
Click to expand...

well - what I'm talking about... is the policy for entire America... on macro level. In your posts - that's on individual basis.... an example of microcosm. We are not talking about one person wanting to cause harm to others.

For example - A person named Brady (fictional) created Brady Campaign whose sole mission is to ban guns in America. I wish not only one or couple of Brady's policies to fail... but MAJORITY of his policies to fail..... in other word - I wish Brady to fail.

I do not wish Bush to fail because I agree with some of his policies.
I do not wish Obama to fail because I disagree with some of his policies.
 
The only person I ever wanted to see "pied" was Donald Rumsfeld. He had a face that screamed "Please pie me" and I wish it had happened.
 
So far the people who said "aye" that it's wrong to issue threats or commit to the damage or destruction of properties relating to U.S. politicians. This includes any form of physical attacks which is implied here.

Reba
Tousi
Kokonut
PFH
Txgolfer
Banjo
Dgirl101
Saywhatkid
Karissamann05
Mrs Bucket
 
We're talking about an individual person, a politician, in harms way. Or the destruction or damage of an office and such that belongs to a politician, party, or political organization. Wishing for a president to fail (his policies) is not about attacking the president. It's not a physical attack, threat or such in order to cause harm to the individual. Better stop reaching while you can.
 
Reba said:
That sounds like blaming the victims of crimes for the attacks.

"When women dress like whores they leave themselves open to rapists."

"When a Mexican immigrant carries a large roll of cash he leaves himself open to robbers."

"When joggers run at night they leave themselves open to attack."

It doesn't matter how someone speaks, it is wrong (immoral, illegal) to make physical threats or attacks against them.


There is no "Teabaggers" group, and I would appreciate it if you could refrain from vulgarity.


Do you feel the same way about left-wing liars and fear-mongers? Do you think they deserve to be attacked?

I can't believe anyone who is civilized and educated can condone physical threats and attacks against anyone who exercises their free speech rights.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between blaming a victim, and saying that when people undertake certain occupations, there are inherent risks involved in such and they need to be aware of it. Hence, take responsibility for the decision you made to enter the political arena and the risks that you knew full well were there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top