Tucson Tragedy: GOP Gives Higher Marks To Obama Than Palin On Response

[driveby]

......"Palin received lower marks for her handling of the tragedy from more Americans than President Barack Obama did, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday found.

Nearly 8 in 10 of those surveyed gave Obama high marks for his response, and 71 percent of Republicans approved of Obama's leadership after the shootings, the Post reported. About 30 percent of those polled approved of Palin's response; among Republicans, her positive marks rose to 56 percent".........

Palin explains 'blood libel' comment - Yahoo! News

Because this is obviously the most important aspect of this tragedy......

End yourself, faggot.......

 

[mal]

^Holy Shite!...



peace...

 

[WillowTree]

Yes. I would.
Presidents not of my ideology come and go.
I do not believe Palin is appropriate for the position. It will create an even larger divide in our nation and quite possibly hurt us internationally.
Her reputation is now mud.....she should have stayed out of the limelight until she was ready to announce running.
Now she is damaged goods...unfairly perhaps...but damaged goods.

How can the divide get any larger? oh wait,, we should all come together and hate Mrs. Palin.. that's a good stratagey.. she's unfairly been damaged by the left and you would still vote for the goons who damaged her.. Yay team. that's good thinking.

Country first.
Party last.
That is part of my ideology.

I am a conservative and whereas I was sickened by what the left did to Palin....Palin opted to give them more ammunition. Her book wsa fine...but the reality show? The twittering?

She opened the door to further damage....and as opposed to cleaning up the damage that all candidtes suffer during a camapiagn, she added to it.

DO I like Obama? As head of state which is what I see as the primary role of POTUS? I see him as doing a decent job.

As part of the legislative process? He sux ass.

But now with checks and balances in place, I am not as concerned about his power. With a double majority, he was dangerous.

But without it?

He is a good head of State.

Nope, he's not. he's the same asswipe he was without the power, how you figure he's a good head of state when all that's changed is the House is beyond me. He'll veto everything the Republicans try to do to clean up his spat. You have a missing link. The veto pen.

 

[Avatar4321]

She is in the news because she seeks the spotlight.

She is making the best living of her life doing TV and books.

They only way to keep the money flowing into her bank accounts is for her to stay in the spotlight.

I'm fairly certain she didn't seek to be accused of murder.

 

[MarcATL]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

Again, I would implore the RWers to reconsider their tactics and just be honest.

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

 

[bodecea]

......"Palin received lower marks for her handling of the tragedy from more Americans than President Barack Obama did, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday found.

Nearly 8 in 10 of those surveyed gave Obama high marks for his response, and 71 percent of Republicans approved of Obama's leadership after the shootings, the Post reported. About 30 percent of those polled approved of Palin's response; among Republicans, her positive marks rose to 56 percent".........

Palin explains 'blood libel' comment - Yahoo! News

Because this is obviously the most important aspect of this tragedy......

End yourself, faggot.......

That was not very nice.

 

[Jarhead]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

Again, I would implore the RWers to reconsider their tactics and just be honest.

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Wow.

Your spinning has me getting dizzy.

Very pathetic way to present the "facts".

 

[Jarhead]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

it was an image that was no different than has been used by both parties in the past

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Do not retreat, reload is a common phrase used to show strength; not miliatrily but metaphorically.

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

She did not implore Palin. She did what politicians do. She cirticized the other party for something that was not worthy of criticism...but can be made to look wortthy of cirticism

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

actually, she mocked and scoffed at the faux outrage...and the others were not making similar appeals...they were outright criticizing her...and she let it be klnown that she sees it as faux outrage.

That being said...I WONDER IF THE LEFT DID NOT CRITICIZE EVERY THING SHE SAYS AND DOES, MAYBE SHE WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO THEIR CRITICSM IF AND WHEN THEY GIVE IT.....But I digress.....

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Yes, she was shot in the head. So were 17 others shot who were NOT politicians on the list

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

She rightfully reacted to those thast claimed as fact that the chart was the casue of the attack. She did not know it to be false...she just knew it was reported as contrinuting. Of course she took it down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

That would be like presenting facts about cats to back up statements about dogs. It is reporting facts but that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

They are attacks. Why was her name and her "facts" brought into the discussion of the shooting? It would be like discussing the actions of a cat when rationalizing the actions of a dog

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Stating facts and discussing facts about something that is not related to the topic at hand is an attack.

Your spin is pathetic.

 

[bodecea]

She is in the news because she seeks the spotlight.

She is making the best living of her life doing TV and books.

They only way to keep the money flowing into her bank accounts is for her to stay in the spotlight.

I'm fairly certain she didn't seek to be accused of murder.

Nor has she found it either.

 

[bodecea]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

it was an image that was no different than has been used by both parties in the past

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Do not retreat, reload is a common phrase used to show strength; not miliatrily but metaphorically.

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

She did not implore Palin. She did what politicians do. She cirticized the other party for something that was not worthy of criticism...but can be made to look wortthy of cirticism
Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Yes, she was shot in the head. So were 17 others shot who were NOT politicians on the list

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

She rightfully reacted to those thast claimed as fact that the chart was the casue of the attack. She did not know it to be false...she just knew it was reported as contrinuting. Of course she took it down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

That would be like presenting facts about cats to back up statements about dogs. It is reporting facts but that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

They are attacks. Why was her name and her "facts" brought into the discussion of the shooting? It would be like discussing the actions of a cat when rationalizing the actions of a dog

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Stating facts and discussing facts about something that is not related to the topic at hand is an attack.

Your spin is pathetic.

Rep Gifford is not the topic at hand?

 

[bodecea]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

Again, I would implore the RWers to reconsider their tactics and just be honest.

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Wow.

Your spinning has me getting dizzy.

Very pathetic way to present the "facts".

Pray tell, what is not true or factual in what he posted?

 

[xotoxi]

Long, long ago, when I was an adolescent, I remember getting into trouble for something, and trying to talk my way out of it. The more I talked, the worse it got. Palin would be wise to just shut up at this point. Her attempt at victimhood turned off all too many Americans.

I've been reading some very amusing comments (elsewhere) about how Palin should sue over this. Oh....please do, Sarah....please do.

Who would she sue?

 

[bodecea]

Long, long ago, when I was an adolescent, I remember getting into trouble for something, and trying to talk my way out of it. The more I talked, the worse it got. Palin would be wise to just shut up at this point. Her attempt at victimhood turned off all too many Americans.

I've been reading some very amusing comments (elsewhere) about how Palin should sue over this. Oh....please do, Sarah....please do.

Who would she sue?

That seems to be one of the sticking points....they wave to some vague mass left wing media entity....but, oh yes! She has grounds to sue.

 

[Jarhead]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

it was an image that was no different than has been used by both parties in the past

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Do not retreat, reload is a common phrase used to show strength; not miliatrily but metaphorically.

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

She did not implore Palin. She did what politicians do. She cirticized the other party for something that was not worthy of criticism...but can be made to look wortthy of cirticism
Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Yes, she was shot in the head. So were 17 others shot who were NOT politicians on the list

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

She rightfully reacted to those thast claimed as fact that the chart was the casue of the attack. She did not know it to be false...she just knew it was reported as contrinuting. Of course she took it down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

That would be like presenting facts about cats to back up statements about dogs. It is reporting facts but that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

They are attacks. Why was her name and her "facts" brought into the discussion of the shooting? It would be like discussing the actions of a cat when rationalizing the actions of a dog

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Stating facts and discussing facts about something that is not related to the topic at hand is an attack.

Your spin is pathetic.

Rep Gifford is not the topic at hand?

Sara Palin was not the topic at hand.
But you knew that is what I meant.

 

[Jarhead]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

Again, I would implore the RWers to reconsider their tactics and just be honest.

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Wow.

Your spinning has me getting dizzy.

Very pathetic way to present the "facts".

Pray tell, what is not true or factual in what he posted?

Funny thing....I put together an entire answer to that question...and you subsequently responded to that answer with some lame spin question about how I did not see Gifford as the subject at hand...and nowhere did you respond to the actual crux of my answer...that you now are questioning.

I always saw you as better than that.

 

[bodecea]

Wow.

Your spinning has me getting dizzy.

Very pathetic way to present the "facts".

Pray tell, what is not true or factual in what he posted?

Funny thing....I put together an entire answer to that question...and you subsequently responded to that answer with some lame spin question about how I did not see Gifford as the subject at hand...and nowhere did you respond to the actual crux of my answer...that you now are questioning.

I always saw you as better than that.

I ask a simple question (that you still have not answered) and you make this about me being better or not? That is puzzling.

 

[Jarhead]

Pray tell, what is not true or factual in what he posted?

Funny thing....I put together an entire answer to that question...and you subsequently responded to that answer with some lame spin question about how I did not see Gifford as the subject at hand...and nowhere did you respond to the actual crux of my answer...that you now are questioning.

I always saw you as better than that.

I ask a simple question (that you still have not answered) and you make this about me being better or not? That is puzzling.

No...as I tried to point out to you.....I had already answered that "simple question" of yours and I know you read it because you subesequently quoted my answer with some spin question of your own that had nothing to do with my answer....

So in essence, you ignored my answer that I already offered when asked by someone else....and then asked me for an answer again.

So it is not very puzzling.

 

[Jarhead]

Offering facts out of context makes accurate facts inaccurate.
Sure, they are still facts....but facts being presnted in a way so they are interpreted inaccurately.

 

[mal]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

Again, I would implore the RWers to reconsider their tactics and just be honest.

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Wow.

Your spinning has me getting dizzy.

Very pathetic way to present the "facts".

Pray tell, what is not true or factual in what he posted?

What a Scumbag you are, Bodey...

Linking Sarah to the AZ Shooting is just as Disgusting as Linking the Ft. Hood Shooting to Obama...



peace...

 

[MarcATL]

RWers would do well to keep in mind that stating facts is not an "attack."

Fact: Sarah Palin put up a campaign image that featured cross-hairs that targeted, by name, members of the Democratic Party, one of them being the shooting victim, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

it was an image that was no different than has been used by both parties in the past

Fact: Sarah Palin followed up with violent rhetoric telling her supporters and fans to not "Retreat, but to RELOAD!"

Do not retreat, reload is a common phrase used to show strength; not miliatrily but metaphorically.

Fact: Giffords had an interview on MSNBC shortly after the cross-hair sign and urged Sarah Palin to reconsider her actions and rhetoric.

She did not implore Palin. She did what politicians do. She cirticized the other party for something that was not worthy of criticism...but can be made to look wortthy of cirticism

Fact: Sarah Palin's response to that was to mock and scoff at not only her, but the rest of the Left who were making similar appeals at the time (approximately a year ago now)

actually, she mocked and scoffed at the faux outrage...and the others were not making similar appeals...they were outright criticizing her...and she let it be klnown that she sees it as faux outrage.

That being said...I WONDER IF THE LEFT DID NOT CRITICIZE EVERY THING SHE SAYS AND DOES, MAYBE SHE WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO THEIR CRITICSM IF AND WHEN THEY GIVE IT.....But I digress.....

Fact: G. Giffords, a target on Sarah Palin's list, was shoot in the head, point blank assassination style and by some miracle survived.

Yes, she was shot in the head. So were 17 others shot who were NOT politicians on the list

Fact: Sarah Palin immediately pulled down the Cross Hair Sign after the reports came down.

She rightfully reacted to those thast claimed as fact that the chart was the casue of the attack. She did not know it to be false...she just knew it was reported as contrinuting. Of course she took it down.

Fact: Most of the media then presented the above facts...as facts. As they are, well...facts.

That would be like presenting facts about cats to back up statements about dogs. It is reporting facts but that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fact: Sarah and the left have called all the above or people who are stating all the above facts, attackers and crying that she's a victim.

They are attacks. Why was her name and her "facts" brought into the discussion of the shooting? It would be like discussing the actions of a cat when rationalizing the actions of a dog

Stating FACTS, or discussing FACTS, are NOT attacks.

Stating facts and discussing facts about something that is not related to the topic at hand is an attack.

Your spin is pathetic.

Dude...you have REALLY proven yourself to be NOT in touch with reality...in the least.

I stated plain, documented, proven, facts.

And YOU want to talk about spinning and being dizzy?

WoW!!!