or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fox News Murders
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fox News Murders

post #1 of 150
Thread Starter 
The recent shooting of 3 police officers was a direct result of right wing propaganda. The shooter was led to believe that his guns would be taken away by the government.

Should we be able to prosecute news outfits who purposely spread fear? The US is a democracy. Our leaders are elected. Our laws are being voted upon. Yet republidiots feel that they had nothing to do with loosing elections, because they have god fearing gun toting homophobes on their side.

I think I just found their new slogan!
post #2 of 150
Though Michelle Bachmann is a bat-shit nut-job, I don't think her glue sniffer rantings had anything to do with it.

The dude was just a bitter, bible toting clinger.
post #3 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

The recent shooting of 3 police officers was a direct result of right wing propaganda. The shooter was led to believe that his guns would be taken away by the government.

Should we be able to prosecute news outfits who purposely spread fear? The US is a democracy. Our leaders are elected. Our laws are being voted upon. Yet republidiots feel that they had nothing to do with loosing elections, because they have god fearing gun toting homophobes on their side.

I think I just found their new slogan!

Funny, I always thought people were responsible for their own actions.

Nobody forced this guy to believe what he did or act how he did. There were obviously other factors at play (mental instability, emotional issues, etc.) that you don't care to look into or mention, since they don't fit your template.

Prosecuting news outfits? Where are we, Venezuela?

Correction: The US is (or WAS) a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.

Most of our leaders are corrupt. Many of our laws are unconstitutional.

If either major party candidate had won the election we would have lost.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If either major party candidate had won the election we would have lost.

And gotten Ron Paul. Whether that would have been a good thing would be a whole other topic.
post #5 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

And gotten Ron Paul. Whether that would have been a good thing would be a whole other topic.

Indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Funny, I always thought people were responsible for their own actions.

Nobody forced this guy to believe what he did or act how he did. There were obviously other factors at play (mental instability, emotional issues, etc.) that you don't care to look into or mention, since they don't fit your template.

Very true, so news reporters should be included in the "Responsible for their action" thing, right?

The other issues you mention obviously play a role. Unfortunately, people who own guns are not all sportsmen. I do not know the percentage but many of them own guns because of fear, mental instability, emotional issues, irrational fear of other people, irrational fear of some invasion from outer space, irrational fear of a North Korea invasion force, irrational fear of Al Qaeda, irrational fear of homosexuals.. you get the theme. Gun sales are cranking up the economy right now, people FEAR there won't be enough guns. Thanks!

However if a scientists points out that the ice shelf is melting that's called fear mongering. Compared to climate issues all else is pretty much a cake walk.
post #7 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Funny, I always thought people were responsible for their own actions.

Try shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded cinema.

Hey, people are responsible for their own actions.

Nothing to do with you.
post #8 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Very true, so news reporters should be included in the "Responsible for their action" thing, right?

The other issues you mention obviously play a role. Unfortunately, people who own guns are not all sportsmen. I do not know the percentage but many of them own guns because of fear, mental instability, emotional issues, irrational fear of other people, irrational fear of some invasion from outer space, irrational fear of a North Korea invasion force, irrational fear of Al Qaeda, irrational fear of homosexuals.. you get the theme. Gun sales are cranking up the economy right now, people FEAR there won't be enough guns. Thanks!

However if a scientists points out that the ice shelf is melting that's called fear mongering. Compared to climate issues all else is pretty much a cake walk.

Really though, I don't see how a news reporter and whatever garbage he/she spews forth over the airwaves is directly responsible for the actions of this madman.

To try to pin the blame for this tragedy on an ideology you don't agree with is really quite sad.

There are extremist elements of any political/idealogical group. Al Qaeda does not represent all of Islam, although they claim to. Would you blame all of Islam for the actions of Al Qaeda?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Really though, I don't see how a news reporter and whatever garbage he/she spews forth over the airwaves is directly responsible for the actions of this madman.

To try to pin the blame for this tragedy on an ideology you don't agree with is really quite sad.

There are extremist elements of any political/idealogical group. Al Qaeda does not represent all of Islam, although they claim to. Would you blame all of Islam for the actions of Al Qaeda?

They are not directly responsible. However they are responsible. If they claim to report news.
I do not blame anyone, however:
Islam is responsible for Al Qaeda. (without Islam no Al Qaeda)
Christianity is responsible for crusades (the pope said so).

Society as a whole is responsible for extremist elements.

NO EDUCATION -> DESPERATION
NO TAXES -> NO $ FOR EDUCATION
BAD HEALTH -> DESPERATION
NO TAXES -> NO $ FOR HEALTH CARE
DESPERATION -> EXTREMISM.
EXTREMISM -> MURDER
post #10 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

. Should we be able to prosecute news outfits who purposely spread fear?

Maybe. There is a word which we use a lot for deliberately spreading fear in a population. It's called terrorism. Terrorism has lots of different MOs, but the end result is to get results by intimidation. The FBI defines it thus: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Spreading fear by publicizing fake terrorist warnings is terrorism itself. If I called in a fake bomb warning causing an evacuation and got caught in the act, I would be charged (and most justifiably so) with all manner of serious offenses, not the least, terrorism related charges. However, if Fox News, CNN or the other members of the Axis of Weasel does the same thing by scaring the living sh¡t out of the population by broadcasting fake warnings about bogus threats/attacks (which they have done on countless occasions in the last 8 years) without fact-checking, they should also be held, to some extent, accountable.

Anyone recall the 45 minutes warning of biological/chemical attacks on any US city by Saddam Hussein's fleet of WMD carrying drones? This was repeated on all the mainstream US media outlets in January and February 2003 on a semi continuous basis, causing a run on plastic sheeting and duct tape, the broadcast of emergency PSAs, and millions of very frightened (and admittedly gullible beyond all believable bounds), people. And the media knew that all that stuff was utter garbage, yet they ran with it, in their default lip service to the administration of the day.

If that wasn't terrorism and was "acceptable", then getting on the phone and calling in a fake bomb threat, is also presumably OK, if we are not to delve into the sticky realms of "one law for them, another law for us" type of duplicity.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There are extremist elements of any political/idealogical group. Al Qaeda does not represent all of Islam, although they claim to. Would you blame all of Islam for the actions of Al Qaeda?

Anyone with a sense of proportion would not. But in the last 8 years, perhaps even more, Islam in general has been implicated in terrorism by many people with a very large reach, in both government and media. One would have to be living on Mars not to notice this. Take for instance the word "Palestine", or "Palestinian".... during the last few decades, the sole mentions of that place or people in the media has been in conjunction with the word terrorism, thus the connection is made. When the OKC bombing happened, it was all "middle easterners all the time", until Tim McVeigh blew it for them.

Since 9/11, the population as a whole has been subjected to the incessant framing of "Islamic" and "Muslim" with the word "terrorism" in the national debate. Yes, the whole of Islam has been blamed for being violent by nature, in the minds of many. President Obama even made of point of trying to deny two days ago when he said that "the United States is not at war with Islam", which indicates that we probably really are (by proxy, that is), but nobody has the balls, or the permission, to admit such in public.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 150
Nice posts, sammi jo. Very well articulated.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Really though, I don't see how a news reporter and whatever garbage he/she spews forth over the airwaves is directly responsible for the actions of this madman.?

I'm gonna spin your quote here a little to make a point. "Really, though, I don't how a gay couple and whatever he/she does in the bedroom is directly responsible for the outcome of their children."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #14 of 150
So the way you help the crazies stop being paranoid is to start censoring and prosecuting people for their thoughts and words.

I think that would up their paranoid-o-meter by a factor of about 2000.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #15 of 150
jamac what speech exactly is Fox responsible for that lead to the shootings? Rectum extractus I think (to use the latin).
post #16 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

jamac what speech exactly is Fox responsible for that lead to the shootings? Rectum extractus I think (to use the latin).

Obama will institute gun control. (reported as fact but is not even on any table anywhere.) I hope he will outlaw all guns including bow and arrow.

"Rectum extractus" = FOX news philosophy.
post #17 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So the way you help the crazies stop being paranoid is to start censoring and prosecuting people for their thoughts and words.

I think that would up their paranoid-o-meter by a factor of about 2000.

Censoring is not the same as holding someone responsible for what they say. You can still say whatever you want. Foreseeing consequences would demand intelligence, maybe even wisdom. I believe to demand this from people who speak to millions is not too much to ask.

Go ahead, shout "FIRE".
post #18 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Censoring is not the same as holding someone responsible for what they say. You can still say whatever you want. Foreseeing consequences would demand intelligence, maybe even wisdom. I believe to demand this from people who speak to millions is not too much to ask.

Go ahead, shout "FIRE".

You are speaking about rational people making rational decisions. This person obviously is not in that class. If a million people saw those Fox claims, then this is the one person, the outlier, who acted on that.

So when you think about how that outlier is going to engage in reasoning, they will draw irrational conclusions from prosecuting people for giving out news and views.

We already have liable and slander laws. What is it you are seeking beyond that if not censorship or control of media?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I hope he will outlaw all guns including bow and arrow.

What about knives? Swords? Bats? Spears? In the hands of a murderer, they can be just as deadly.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #20 of 150
Not to mention this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(Emphasis added.)

Note the capitalization of the word "People". Calitalized. Just like in "We the People" from the preamble to the Constitution.

I don't know how it can be any more clear.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Obama will institute gun control. (reported as fact but is not even on any table anywhere.) I hope he will outlaw all guns including bow and arrow.

"Rectum extractus" = FOX news philosophy.

Lets see a link. I think you are mistaken. I don't think this happened.
post #22 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Lets see a link. I think you are mistaken. I don't think this happened.

Quote:
Glenn Beck: "Nutjob" In Pittsburgh Not My Fault, I'm Just A "Flight Attendant"

I am obviously not the only one under the impression that Fox News incites violence.
post #23 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not to mention this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(Emphasis added.)

Note the capitalization of the word "People". Calitalized. Just like in "We the People" from the preamble to the Constitution.

I don't know how it can be any more clear.

What is a free state?

Is it a place where gay people can't marry and women can't have abortions?

Is it a place where people loose everything they have to a health problem?

Is it a place where education is so expensive that only the wealthy have access to the best?

Is it a place where you can burn as much carbon as you like without any regard for any consequences?
post #24 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I am obviously not the only one under the impression that Fox News incites violence.

So we are legislating based off impressions now?

Hell, I better go start stockpiling guns and ammo myself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not to mention this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(Emphasis added.)

Note the capitalization of the word "People". Calitalized. Just like in "We the People" from the preamble to the Constitution.

I don't know how it can be any more clear.

This one will be debated by Constitutional scholars forever... but in practical terms, the right of the people to bear arms is now common law as well, in the same way that it is common law for corporations to have the same (or even more) rights as individual citizens.

For better or worse, the guns are out there, the toothpaste is out of the proverbial tube. But....one question in my mind re. the 2nd Amendment, is the definition of "arms", which run the gamut from bows and arrows, through handguns and rifles, to automatic weapons, to RPG launchers, artillery, tanks, conventional bombs, fighter aircraft, chemical and biological weapons, ICBMs and nukes and a whole bunch of other stuff in between. Where does one draw the line, and how would one arrive at that line? What weapons would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, and is there any case law re. such matters?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #26 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

What is a free state?

"Free state" is a term that, when applied, can commonly assert sovereignty or independence. It can also assert autonomy within a larger nation-state. It is sometimes used synonomously with the word "republic".

Quote:
Is it a place where gay people can't marry and women can't have abortions?

Neither marriage, nor abortion are rights.

Quote:
Is it a place where people loose everything they have to a health problem?

Health is not a right.

Quote:
Is it a place where education is so expensive that only the wealthy have access to the best?

Education is not a right. It is also unconstitutional for education to be administered by the federal government. See the 10th Amendment.

Quote:
Is it a place where you can burn as much carbon as you like without any regard for any consequences?

Yes, as of today it is.

Any more questions?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 150
Please show me where these "rights" are guaranteed by the US Constitution, and I will recant.

Edited to Add:

You refer to me as Hitler and want to repeal the Second Amendment?

Oh, the irony.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #28 of 150
"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation ... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions ... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."

-- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #29 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Obama will institute gun control. (reported as fact but is not even on any table anywhere.) I hope he will outlaw all guns including bow and arrow.

"Rectum extractus" = FOX news philosophy.

Linky?
post #30 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please show me where these "rights" are guaranteed by the US Constitution, and I will recant.

Edited to Add:

You refer to me as Hitler and want to repeal the Second Amendment?

Oh, the irony.

You believe health, education, a clean environment, solid science et al has no influence on the pursuit of happiness?


Actually Hitler was a health freak, a techno maniac who hastened invention, he designed the VW Bug, his scientist were the best, almost took over an entire continent in a few years.
You really think you can keep up with the dude?

post #31 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Linky?

No, I am righty!

If you haven't found the story by now .... sorry.
post #32 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

You believe health, education, a clean environment, solid science et al has no influence on the pursuit of happiness?

I believe the government has no right to tell you what your pursuit of happiness should be, nor do they have any constitutional authority to use the money of others to finance your pursuit of happiness in any way.

The framers of the Constitution support my belief.

10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution grants no power to the Federal Government to administer education, health care, abortion, etc. Therefore, decisions regarding those matters are reserved to the States or the people.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #33 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I believe the government has no right to tell you what your pursuit of happiness should be, nor do they have any constitutional authority to use the money of others to finance your pursuit of happiness in any way.

Earning money is not a right.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #34 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I believe the government has no right to tell you what your pursuit of happiness should be, nor do they have any constitutional authority to use the money of others to finance your pursuit of happiness in any way.

The framers of the Constitution support my belief.

10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution grants no power to the Federal Government to administer education, health care, abortion, etc. Therefore, decisions regarding those matters are reserved to the States or the people.

BLA DI BLA you haven't answered the question...
Try again.
post #35 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Earning money is not a right.

Actually, the Constitution does specifically mention money. You have read it, I assume? The US Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 grants only to Congress the power "To coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof".

Congress soon after passed the Mint Act of 1792, establishing a US Mint that produced money based on gold and silver.

Article 1, Section 10 states:

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".

The Constitution made it very clear that only gold and silver based currency was to be used among the States.

As you can see, the Constitution does specifically mention money. Today our money is based on...well...nothing, really. We aren't using money in accordance with the Constitution, hence the problems.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #36 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

BLA DI BLA you haven't answered the question...
Try again.

I thought I answered it quite well. Perhaps you didn't understand?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

No, I am righty!

If you haven't found the story by now .... sorry.

So you did pull it straight out of you ass? This entire thread is based on jamac fantasy.
post #38 of 150
Actually this thread is based on talking points about WACO.

Here is the thought-crime...

Quote:
Astonishing.

So what's the tragic logic on display here?

Brace yourselves: folks like Beck and other conservative talkers are inciting the lunatic fringe in the nation by having the nerve to suggest an anti-gun rights Democrat president along with an anti-gun rights Democrat Congress are going to enact anti-gun rights legislation.

What chutzpah!!!

So Jamac, do they email you the talking points or did you have to go read them somewhere?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

So you did pull it straight out of you ass? This entire thread is based on jamac fantasy.

Yep...
post #40 of 150
Thread Starter 
FN

It would be much better if the tax payers have to pay for damages. Of course if you are poor you really need a gun to defend your property. To compare ropes to guns is plain idiotic. How about the pursuit of happiness? BTW you do have to have insurance for assemblies, concerts, movieshoots. To compare guns and knives is also completely idiotic.
If you don't have insurance for your car (which is regarded as a deadly weapon in some cases) you pay. We need guns to protect ourselves from our government? I would like to see US citizens go to war against the US army. That Glock is really going to intimidate the guy with the finger on the button.

According to Glenn it is OK to kill Sarah Palin for being stupid as long as you do it with a gun.
3 police officers have died.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fox News Murders