"Kill him" allegation at Palin event unfounded.

[rwp]

They didn't shout "Kill him."
They clearly shouted, "to blave." Which, as everybody knows means "To bluff". It seems clear to me that the McCain supporters were calling Obama's bluff.

No, no, no. It was clearly "true love".

 

[DavidJames]

No, no, no. It was clearly "true love".

Nope it was Islam is the light.

 

[RandFan]

You had not seen it before?

You probably noted that film gets quoted a LOT around here.
And Remember, Never Bet Against A Sicilian When Death Is On The Line....

Not my first time. Not my tenth time. I don't know how many times I've seen it but it's up there with Fletch and Vacation.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Why oh why?

Excuse me? Is your English failing you again, Oliver?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Calling him a terrorist is the equivalent of calling for his death in any case. Shows the sort of stuff core Repubs are made of - I've never met one I would trust with my money or my liberties.

Legally, it isn't.

 

[boloboffin]

Yes, because the Secret Service are idiots and don't know how to gather data.

As skeptics shouldn't we expect evidence? Is speculation really the coin of our realm? Are you really making a CT claim?

Dana Milbank is making the claim. I'm choosing to believe him and his colleagues who were there, rather than the Secret Service who went in looking for information after the fact. Indeed, Dana suggests that if reporters had been allowed to go into the crowd by the Secret Service, they themselves could have gotten more information. But the Secret Service, according to Milbank, is a little more interested in running interference for Palin than letting reporters do their job.

My beef here is your constant implication that one side is "irrational" for believing what they do. I don't think it's irrational for people to trust what the Secret Service says. I also don't think it's irrational to believe what I do about the situation. You've got who you're believing, and I've got who I'm believing. People looking around for CTers to bash should head over to the Conspiracy Theories forums.

 

[Aerik]

I know in the minds of those who are convinced that most on the right are racists, such a burden of proof may not be required. But it should be. This is a serious allegation.

It's not that most of the people on the right are racists. Most white Americans period are racist, ranging from the noose-using superbigots or people who think that if they ignore racism it goes away.

It's more that Palin's rabid supporters who attend her rallies are racist. They have proven this over and over, with their terrorist crap, the Arab crap, the muslim crap, and let's not forget the guy who went around with a stuffed monkey w/ an Obama bumper sticker on it's head.

Second, Republican talkingheads on cable news have argued several times by now that it's not Palin or McCain's fault for not immediately rebuking the racist catcalls at their events. So it's Right wing republicans that have also been accepting of this accusation as well, so don't you blithely try to pin this on everybody else.

 

[Slayhamlet]

That was my take on it, too, only it sounded like several someones said something at the same time.

"Kill him" doesn't even make sense in context of the question at that point. (But if someone were to shout "kill him" I don't suppose it would need to make sense.)

I see no reason to doubt the Secret Service's assertion on this.

The threat in question was uttered at a Palin rally in Pennsylvania, I believe, which wasn't recorded. What that video does show is how easy it is to mishear words that are shouted at boisterous rallies. On the other hand, considering the emotional state of the crowds that have been attending these rallies, I wouldn't be so surprised if there was someone stupid enough to say such a thing. It's impossible to tell one way or the other about this particular instance, though.

 

[RandFan]

I'm choosing to believe him and his colleagues who were there, rather than the Secret Service who went in looking for information after the fact.

Why? Shouldn't we be skeptical of both?

My beef here is your constant implication that one side is "irrational" for believing what they do.

Let me disabuse of that misguided beef right now. I think both sides are both quite capable of both rationality and irrationality. I don't believe in guys in white hats. That's political kool-aid and that so many "skeptics" are willing to simply accept and propagate whatever blows in the wind is beyond me. Did someone say "kill him"? Hell if I know. There's currently contradictory information on that. I don't check my bias first before I start making hoc rationalizations why one side is right and the other is wrong.

I can't force others to be skeptics but I can remind them that the mark of skepticism isn't when you are simply skeptical of those things that don't fit your world view. If that were true everyone would be a skeptic.

You've got who you're believing...

There's your problem. You are making assumptions about what I believe. I haven't take a position pro or con. I'm saying we ought not to simply swallow what we are spoon fed.

 

[Daylight]

This occured in August before the current McCain/Palin smear campaign began

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgbj-yeLb8&feature=related

The Secret Service is doing their job, but McCain/Palin are making it difficult with their juvenile actions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that arrest you have linked to, Daylight, proves this isn't some manufactured problem.

To pretend the whole thing is a made up outrage doesn't cut it whether some secret service agent denies such hate messages are being shouted at these rallies or not. Here's a whole slew of unmistakable incited Obama hate:

 

[MattusMaximus]

Inconceivable!

 

[RandFan]

To pretend the whole thing is a made up outrage doesn't cut it whether some secret service agent denies such hate messages are being shouted at these rallies or not. Here's a whole slew of unmistakable incited Obama hate:

Of course, if we were, perchance, to be skeptical and look at this critically we might come to the conclusion that McCain and Palin are trying to exploit a potential weakness in the Obama campaign. Linking Obama to terrorism is playing to the fears and bias of the crowd. Kinda like the homosexual baiting of the previous election. They are not trying to foment hate rather than win an election by playing to people's base emotions. There is no proof that this strategy will result in the outcome that so many are demanding we accept.

I do accept the claim of smear campaign.

 

[Daylight]

I think that arrest you have linked to, Daylight, proves this isn't some manufactured problem.

To pretend the whole thing is a made up outrage doesn't cut it whether some secret service agent denies such hate messages are being shouted at these rallies or not. Here's a whole slew of unmistakable incited Obama hate:

What I was trying to show is that a certain element in society was already pushed to the edge by the republican propaganda before this current stuff. Fortunately the Secret Service got to them in time.

What McCain/Palin have done is irresponsible by whipping supporters into a frenzy with this hate-speak totally based on outright lies. My concern is how many of these frenzied supporters will view the August guy as a patriot and try to complete the mission.

Add to this people on the other side who have suffered through the last 8 years and the push back could be even worse.

As a skeptic are we still allowed to cross our fingers for luck?

 

[RandFan]

What I was trying to show is that a certain element in society was already pushed to the edge by the republican propaganda before this current stuff. Fortunately the Secret Service got to them in time.

Who did they get to in time?

What McCain/Palin have done is irresponsible by whipping supporters into a frenzy with this hate-speak totally based on outright lies.

A "frenzy"? Wow, a frenzy. Were are the videos of the riots? You know, the marching in the streets? What did the mob do after the rallys? What? They went home? Pussys.

Your rhetoric is overblown to the point of absurdity.

My concern is how many of these frenzied supporters will view the August guy as a patriot and try to complete the mission.

Fallacy. Now you are the one who is patronizing and playing to people's fears. Define irony?

As a skeptic are we still allowed to cross our fingers for luck?

It would be nice if you were first a skeptic. You've offered nothing but speculation and fallacy. How does that conform to skepticism and critical thinking?

 

[Daylight]

Who did they get to in time?

I was responding to Skeptigirl who was responding to post #50. See the quote, that says Skeptigirl?

A "frenzy"? Wow, a frenzy. Were are the videos of the riots? You know, the marching in the streets? What did the mob do after the rallys? What? They went home? Pussys.

Your rhetoric is overblown to the point of absurdity.

So you consider what Mc/Cain/Palin are doing are responsible actions. And you think calm people yell "kill him". And using your Sylvia Brown talent you know they went home afterwards. Just wow.

Fallacy. Now you are the one who is patronizing and playing to people's fears. Define irony?

We are not allowed to be concerned about what we see in a video without your approval? Or post our concerns from what we see? Define dictator? Maybe you can pull your head out of the sand and watch Skeptigirl’s video.

It would be nice if you were first a skeptic. You've offered nothing but speculation and fallacy. How does that conform to skepticism and critical thinking?

RanFan, your Royal Highness, my apologies. Please don’t beat me! I forgot we must post only per your wacky "Queensbury rules for discussion". Someday I hope to use them so I too can be considered more than the primordial goo you view us lower forms.

 

[RandFan]

So you consider what Mc/Cain/Palin are doing are responsible actions.

I've condemned the rhetoric... and you know this.

And you think calm people yell "kill him".

I never said they were calm. I just don't see any evidence of "frenzy". Do you?

And using your Sylvia Brown talent you know they went home afterwards. Just wow.

• Did they march in the streets?
• Did they go out and destroy property?
• Did they get in fights?
• Is there any evidence that they didn't just go home?

Dude, I hate to keep telling you this but this is a skeptics forum. If you make a claim it is up to you to prove it.

Frenzied? Really? How frenzied where these people? What is the evidence beyond some bad sentiments?

After the Rodney King beating trial people were frenzied. How do we know? Simple, they took to the streets and destroyed property, beat people with bricks.

And the McCain and Palin bunch of pussys? What the hell did they do?

Maybe they didn't go home but they sure as hell didn't riot or march or break windows or beat anyone. This is a pathetic bunch for "frenzied".

We are not allowed to be concerned about what we see in a video without your approval? Or post our concerns from what we see? Define dictator? Maybe you can pull your head out of the sand and watch Skeptigirl’s video.

We should be skeptical. When someone says that there is reason to be concerned we ought to pull our heads out of our butts and ask "where is the evidence"? Where are the riots? Where is the destruction of property? Where is the beef?

RanFan, your Royal Highness, my apologies. Please don’t beat me! I forgot we must post only per your wacky "Queensbury rules for discussion". Someday I hope to use them so I too can be considered more than the primordial goo you view us lower forms.

I only want you to be skeptical and use critical thinking. You are running around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling!!!!!!

BS!!!! Where's the evidence? Where are the riots? Where are the people taking to the streets? Where is the destroyed property? Where is the arsons and beating people with bricks.

You are being absurd and this is a skeptics forum. If you can't take the heat get the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[Daylight]

I've condemned the rhetoric... and you know this.

Care to show us where in this thread?

I never said they were calm. I just don't see any evidence of "frenzy". Do you?

If they were not calm, they were what, Wound Up? Agitated? Angry? Antagonistic? In a rage? Frenzied?

• Did they march in the streets?
• Did they go out and destroy property?
• Did they get in fights?
• Is there any evidence that they didn't just go home?

Dude, I hate to keep telling you this but this is a skeptics forum. If you make a claim it is up to you to prove it.

You first. You made the claim they went home. As you condescendingly say, Dude, I hate to keep telling you this but this is a skeptics forum. If you make a claim it is up to you to prove it.

Frenzied? Really? How frenzied where these people? What is the evidence beyond some bad sentiments?

So rational people yell these things out. I'm sorry you can't see that this unacceptable behavior by McCain/Palin is dangerous.

You are being absurd and this is a skeptics forum. If you can't take the heat get the hell out of the kitchen.

This is just another of your world famous childish tizzy fits on this board when people don't bow down to your GIANT EGO and post per your Queensbury Rules of posting.

I hate to break this to you, but thats what friends are for. YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHO POSTS ON THIS BOARD or HOW THEY POST, DEAL WITH IT.



...
Back to the thread............

Hopefully RanFan can see this is another example why what McCain/Palin did is unacceptable and dangerous.

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S634769.shtml?cat=566

As I said above, with the current tensions it doesn't take much to push unstable individual(s) over the edge. ATF got lucky. Fingers crossed they continue doing such a good job.

 

[gtc]

Hopefully RanFan can see this is another example why what McCain/Palin did is unacceptable and dangerous.

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S634769.shtml?cat=566

As I said above, with the current tensions it doesn't take much to push unstable individual(s) over the edge. ATF got lucky. Fingers crossed they continue doing such a good job.

There is no evidence to suggest that these people were influenced by anything McCain or Palin said.

Where is the evidence to suggest that anything McCain or Palin have said could cause someone to go 'over the edge'.

This just seems like an attempt to smear McCain and Palin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no evidence to suggest that these people were influenced by anything McCain or Palin said.

Where is the evidence to suggest that anything McCain or Palin have said could cause someone to go 'over the edge'.

This just seems like an attempt to smear McCain and Palin.

Are you living on a different planet?

According to Palin and McCain, Obama is "dangerous", "wants to teach sex in kindergarten", "is a socialist", "wants to redistribute the wealth" (which is code for a 'communist'), and, "associates with anti-American terrorists". McCain continues to claim that "we need to know what Obama's relationship to Ayers really is and has been harping on the "Obama is a communist" theme all this week.

In addition to this, a Republican smear campaign is going on as well claiming Obama is a secret Muslim and wasn't really born in the US. While McCain was too embarrassed to let the 'Muslim claim' go unchallenged at his rally, the campaign itself has done little overall to tone down the spread of such falsehoods.

This kind of garbage clearly encourages skinhead racist types to act out their fantasies. I find the idea one makes up lies in order to win an elected office to be unethical and disgusting. Just because it is commonly done is no excuse. McCain should be embarrassed.