The unseemly rush to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and Republicans for murder in Arizona

cable2 you did say that. You said nothing about having read that on a blog. You can only retreat behind your poor English so often, this time it doesn't wash.

Now either back up the statement or take it back.

cable2 wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Considering most offensive posts are edited within a few hours, I think a whole day (especially when you posted a couple of times after that post in question) is more than enough time personally.

Perhaps you would be better off backing up your statements at the time of posting when you make such contentious statements.

mayhap a whole day is more then enough.. but when do's that day start??

1) when one posts...
2) when some other member post their hurt feelings...
3) when the poster is informed of the offence...

in me defense.. I never knew I was under such penalty until I returned only a couple of minuets before that time limit ran out.. nor did I know others where was hurt by my post.. but what I did know was.. that my post needed to be expanded.. and that expansion was what I was trying to do when I returned today.

as for my crime.. I is sorry if me post hurt.

Don't take the piss. You posted several times after you made that comment. I was very generous to give you a chance to explain. That offer is still open to explain yourself.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:cable2 you did say that. You said nothing about having read that on a blog. You can only retreat behind your poor English so often, this time it doesn't wash.

Now either back up the statement or take it back.

cable2 wrote:mayhap it's cos the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

is what I said is it not..
but it was only when I came back the next day.. after I had been pulled away from my computer.. that I was able to expand on what I had posted.. the expantion was that:

cable2 wrote: when I first hear the news of the shooting.. I was shocked and did not understand so I did a Yahoo blog search to see what opinions there was out there [this was before the media came out with their claims] the first blog I found was from some one who said he was in the Tea-Party.. this guy deafened the shooting by using the same claim as the Abortion clinic bomber.. "the act was to save lives".. i.e.. Obama's health-care

the point which upset me, as I keep saying, was when I tried to go back to that blog, I found it had been deleted, so I could not give a working link and as I did not take a copy of all what was said, I could not even post a copy.. all I can give you is my memory of the part which so effected me.

I have never hide behind or under my english nor can I think of any member of this forum who hides behind or under the use of any language

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

cable2 wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Considering most offensive posts are edited within a few hours, I think a whole day (especially when you posted a couple of times after that post in question) is more than enough time personally.

Perhaps you would be better off backing up your statements at the time of posting when you make such contentious statements.

mayhap a whole day is more then enough.. but when do's that day start??

1) when one posts...
2) when some other member post their hurt feelings...
3) when the poster is informed of the offence...

in me defense.. I never knew I was under such penalty until I returned only a couple of minuets before that time limit ran out.. nor did I know others where was hurt by my post.. but what I did know was.. that my post needed to be expanded.. and that expansion was what I was trying to do when I returned today.

as for my crime.. I is sorry if me post hurt.

Don't take the piss. You posted several times after you made that comment. I was very generous to give you a chance to explain. That offer is still open to explain yourself.

I piss take not.. but I am also censoring this post of mine.

cable2 wrote:

cable2 wrote:as I said in another post.. when I first heard the news of the shooting I did a Yahoo blog search.. the first blog I read was from a guy who said HE was in the tea-pary.. and the guy deafened the shooter.

dblboggie wrote:And there were no town hall meetings that Obama attended that had armed citizens. Anyone with any familiarity of how Presidential appearances are set up know full well that the Secret Service would never allow such a thing to occur.

Cable's comments were completely out of line and had no basis in fact. THAT is the kind of stuff that we should all object to here. It is not productive to peddle pure fiction as "fact."

cable2 wrote:Man With Gun Shows Up for Obama Town Hall and Police Let Him Stay
By Sheryl H. Salomon on Aug 11th 2009 7:06PM


http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/2

so is me "comments were completely out of line" ?

dblboggie wrote:Yes... they were out of line, but that was actually aimed at your allegation that Loughner was a Tea Party hero. However you are also wrong on this point as well. The person in question was not AT the Obama Town Hall meeting. He was outside the venue,

Please read my words... it was NOT I who said the shooter was a Tea-Party hero

As has already been pointed out by Kronos and Matt, those were your words. You said, and I quote: ” ...the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..."

You did not attribute it to a blogger in that initial post, you didn’t say you’d gotten this somewhere else. You asserted it as a fact without any corroboration whatsoever.

But more to the point, even if you had stated that you had gotten this from a blogger, why on earth would you post it here as a “fact???” And even if that post hadn’t disappeared on you, what possible good would it have done to post it here? It’s not like it’s a “fact.” It could have been written by some unbalanced wingnut just as crazy as Loughner himself.

I asked you in an earlier response if you considered unsubstantiated blog posts as valid and responsible research. You did not answer that question, so I pose it again here. Do you consider this to be responsible research worthy of using here as “facts” to support a position?

cable2 wrote:as to the your agile tap dance over how close an armed gunman needs to the president to carry the label of being at a presidential meeting.. me thinks any one reading the "at the time" news reports or watch the videos at the links I gave would in all right and conscience agree with the words used by those news reports or the dialog of the videos that "the gunman where AT Obama's town hall meeting" and if you have an objection to the words of the reporters or the commentary of the videos. I would suggest that you write to the editors of the newspapers and a strongly worded letter to the TV news companies to ask them to recant their reports and comply with the understanding you have of the words "the gunman where AT Obama's town hall meeting"

If you would just read my responses, you would see that I have already addressed these points. However, I will repeat myself again just to make it clear.

If you told your friends that you were AT a [name of artist here] concert, what do you suppose their first questions would be? Something like “how was it?” “what songs did they do?” “how close were you?” “did you get anyone’s autograph?” “did you get any pictures?” or questions along those lines, right?

NOW, if you then told them, “Well... I wasn’t exactly in the hall, I stood out in the parking lot 200 yards away, so I didn’t get to hear or see anything.” Now, do you really think they’d buy your assertion that you were AT that concert? Think about it now. Do you really think they’d buy that? Probably not, eh?

SO, when the media report that armed protesters ATTENDED or were AT an Obama town hall event, when 1) NO one armed is EVER allowed to get so much as within eyeshot of the President except the Secret Service and 2) NO one armed was actually in attendance at the event (much as the example of the concert above), then it is only fair to assume that the media are deliberately misrepresenting the situation to make it sound more sensational than it was (a very common media tactic) and/or attempting to forward a political agenda by misrepresenting the facts.

This is not a matter of mere semantics. If one says one attended an event, then it is only reasonable for others to assume that person has some knowledge of what was said at that event, who was in attendance at it, who spoke or performed at it, how well they did, and any number of other facts pertaining to that event.

I don’t think I can make it any clearer than this. These armed protestors were NOT AT the Obama town halls... they may have been in the VICINITY of those town halls, but they were certainly not AT them.

But quite apart from all this, what point was it that you were trying to make with all this? Why does it matter that American citizens, exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, were in the vicinity of these Obama town halls?