Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

No connection, huh? I dunno.. One of Palins targets was Tuscon, and Gabby Gifford got shot.

excon

---

Coincidence. Would you mind showing us where that wacko was inspired by the map? You know, actually connect some dots.

Hello again, Steve:

So, a wacko has to SAY what inspired him, huh?? Nahhhh...

excon

You of all people know what motive is. The FRC shooter's motive is clear, dots connected. What was Loughner's motive? Come on, connect the dots if you can.

Don't wackos get their motives from all kinds of sources, real or imagined?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Don't wackos get their motives from all kinds of sources, real or imagined?

---

Yes, so?

Hello again, Steve:

Some people don't need to be hit over the head with dots in order to connect them..

In any case, the purpose of this thread is to show how BAD the left is for instigating wackos... I COULD agree with you, but not when you DENY that Sarah Palin did the same thing - EVEN if the outcome may have been different...

So, I'm NOT going to agree. Why would I? It's ONE way and it's BONKERS.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Some people don't need to be hit over the head with dots in order to connect them..

In any case, the purpose of this thread is to show how BAD the left is for instigating wackos... I COULD agree with you, but not when you DENY that Sarah Palin did the same thing - EVEN if the outcome may have been different...

---

I've never denied she had a map that you guys call "crosshairs", but what exactly did it instigate besides left-wing knees jerking all over the place to connect dots to the Tucson shooting that aren't there?

Quote:

---

So, I'm NOT going to agree. Why would I? It's ONE way and it's BONKERS.

---

I agree, it IS one way and it IS bonkers. In your view everything is the right-wing's fault even when it isn't, and nothing is the left's fault even when it is. That's as bonkers as it gets.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

but what exactly did it instigate

---

You missed it again.. The OFFENSE, if there was one, is publishing the targets/year in hate - NOT the outcomes or lack thereof..

You think one was wonderful and the other not so wonderful. I don't make those distinctions.

Excon

Laughner counts the "Communist Manifesto" among his favorite reads and a video of the American flag burning as his favorite YouTube post.
Yeah clearly he's a right wing nut .

Hello again, tom:

Whatever he believed is NOT the issue. The ISSUE is whether Sarah Palins TARGETS guided him.

Or more specifically, why is the SPLC so bad and Sarah Palin so good?? They BOTH published incendiary stuff.

excon

And you've been offered quite some time to show the map guided him. I've done my. Part, time for you to stop bloviating and prove the link to the map. Otherwise you got nuthin' no matter how try to spin it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Whatever he believed is NOT the issue. The ISSUE is whether Sarah Palins TARGETS guided him.

Or more specifically, why is the SPLC so bad and Sarah Palin so good??? They BOTH published incendiary stuff.

excon

---

The problem with your narrative is Floyd Lee Corkins specifically stated he drew inspiration from the SPLC list . Laughtner has never mentioned Palin's campaign map. It is all a fabrication in the left wing mind to try to make the connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

---

Or in other words reality doesn't matter.

Whose reality are we speaking about? I have no clue of what yours is that blames others for the acts of the criminally insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the problem with your narrative is Floyd Lee Corkins specifically stated he drew inspiration from the SPLC list . Laughtner has never mentioned Palin's campaign map. It is all a fabrication in the left wing mind to try to make the connection.

---

Your statement is not accurate. Nowhere does the individual talks about, "inspiration". Instead the limited interview talks about a means to an end. Any line of reasoning that pursues "inspiration" can not be substantiated from the information available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Your statement is not accurate. Nowhere does the individual talks about, "inspiration". Instead the limited interview talks about a means to an end. Any line of reasoning that pursues "inspiration" can not be substantiated from the information available.

---

His inspiration was Chik-Fil-A standing for traditional marriage, taking revenge on "anti-gay" groups. He admittedly picked his target from SPLC's irresponsible list of alleged hate groups.

Excon contends the Tucson shooter did the same from Palin's "crosshairs map" even though there is no evidence to support that, it was manufactured outrage trying to paint the guy as a right-wing wacko inspired by Palin's "hate."

Only the first scenario is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

His inspiration was Chik-Fil-A standing for traditional marriage, taking revenge on "anti-gay" groups. He admittedly picked his target from SPLC's irresponsible list of alleged hate groups.

Excon contends the Tuscon shooter did the same from Palin's "crosshairs map" even though there is no evidence to support that, it was manufactured outrage trying to paint the guy as a right-wing wacko inspired by Palin's "hate."

Only the first scenario is true.

---

Of course it is irresponsible. But one groups irresponsibility does not necessarily translate into "motivation" for another person or groups of people.. It can, but there is no evidence from what has been made available that this is the case.

Inspiration and motivation aren't exactly the same things, Tut. But your colors are showing again. Instead of taking issue with those making a connection that doesn't exist and downplaying one that does, you're nitpicking on word selection.

You seem to be nit picking your own narrative and dismissing those that don't fit your narrative. Hard to be objective in evaluating facts that way.