Responding to criticism that a heated political climate was a factor in the weekend attack that seriously injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others, Sarah Palin expressed "sadness" about "irresponsible statements from people attempting to ...you get the idea. poor sarah palin, the victim of irresponsible statements. in other headlines, sarah takes a page out of the israeli playbook, accusing her critics of "blood libel" for daring to criticize her!
sarah's just a shallow, money-grubbing media creation of news corp's rupert murdoch. she isn't responsible for anything that is purported to come from her: she's just the human face of the corporate machine, whose purpose is to rile up the ignorant and resentful mob, in order to distract them from noticing that the true authors of their misery are the same people who pull sarah's strings.
about this shooty-killy thing: if the "right wing" isn't responsible for jared lee loughner's rampage, then why are there laws like "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"? there is a commonly accepted notion that you don't deliberately manipulate people with impaired or inadequate judgement into committing illegal acts. when someone urges angry, unsophisticated people "don't retreat -- reload!" is it any surprise that the only way loughner was stopped was when a bystander ripped the magazine out of his hand while he tried to reload?
sarah seems to believe outrageous, provocative statements are an easy, cost-free way to get paid the big bucks -- society's pain is her gain. who needs to invest in beck's gold when you can pluck money off trees like sarah can? indeed, sarah seems to feel as entitled to get rich off the suffering of others as the wall street banksters do: get paid outrageous sums for creating nothing of value. wall streeters move fraudulent investments, while sarah hawks a bankrupt ideology.
incidentally, if the right wing isn't responsible for loughner's decision to resolve his inner conflict using a glock 9mm pistol, who do you suppose is out there buying every sample they can put their hands on? who is it, exactly, who promotes the use of guns for nearly every ailment afflicting the human race, if not the right-wing gun nuts? every person attending the va. tea party convention in richmond last november was wearing a "guns save lives" sticker, and many openly carried sidearms. is the permissive, promiscuous flouting of weaponry an indication of restraint and self-control? or is the whole point of this movement about confrontation and the settling of grievances with extreme prejudice?