Palin Event Cancelled for Safety Reasons

Yukon Jack · February 11, 2011

Not to be all about semantics but I can't help notice that the targets on that map are like a bulls eye target, somewhat different than the crosshairs of a scoped weapon no?

Not to be nitpicking, but the bulls-eye indicates the target where the bullet does the harm, while the cross-hair is only the view of the potential shooter.

bloodyminded · February 11, 2011

No way , her free speech argument is as bogus as her security fantasy.

No...and she's made that particular claim before. When being criticized and disagreed with (during her continual public pronouncements), she whined plaintively that people were trying to restrict her "freedom of speech."

Meaning, I guess, that "freedom of speech" denotes being able to say whatever you wish, while no one disagrees with you.

Which means she doesn't understand even very basic concepts.

bloodyminded · February 11, 2011

I didn't say they were bogus, obviously there was enough hate mail to raise security concerns for them, enough to cancel the event, supposition about the contents doesn't make it so

????

Your entire thesis is premised on "supposition about the contents"!

bloodyminded · February 11, 2011

Not to be nitpicking, but the bulls-eye indicates the target where the bullet does the harm, while the cross-hair is only the view of the potential shooter.

No, that's not nitpicking at all!

At any rate, we have been duly informed that there was no crosshair; it was a "surveyor's symbol."

Shady · February 13, 2011

Such an assinine comment.

I know! Almost as assinine as criticizing somebody for cancelling an event because of security concerns. Especially when one isn't privy to said information, specific or otherwise. It's a type of derangement that occurs when one succumbs to hatred and anger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_JyoK8RVPE

Shakeyhands · February 13, 2011

I know! Almost as assinine as criticizing somebody for cancelling an event because of security concerns. Especially when one isn't privy to said information, specific or otherwise. It's a type of derangement that occurs when one succumbs to hatred and anger.

Here you go Professor... Maybe this will help you with your line of defence. I even highlighted the pertinent parts for you!

Enjoy!!!!!

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_17323756?source=commented-

The nonprofit that called off a speech by Sarah Palin, citing "safety concerns resulting from an onslaught of negative feedback received by the organization" never reported any threats to law enforcement agencies.
.......... (snip)

Glendale Police Chief Victor Ross said the foundation notified his department of Palin's visit, which Ross said was confirmed with the center.

Ross said nobody has reported any danger surrounding the event since then.

"We've had no problems," Ross said. "We are not aware of any specific threats."

Shady · February 13, 2011

Here you go Professor... Maybe this will help you with your line of defence. I even highlighted the pertinent parts for you!

Enjoy!!!!!

Perhaps your beef is with the non-profit group then and not with Palin herself. Perhaps your PDS just got in the way of things.

Ross said nobody has reported any danger surrounding the event since then.

"We've had no problems," Ross said. "We are not aware of any specific threats."

The same could have been said about the Giffords event. Once again, stop your derangement.

Wilber · February 13, 2011

I'm thinkin the deciding "negative feedback" was the lack of ticket sales.

Shakeyhands · February 13, 2011

I'm thinkin the deciding "negative feedback" was the lack of ticket sales.

That is because you are actually thinking, as opposed to some of the booster club on this board who keep falling back on:

- (non existing) threats

- double standards

- and some retarded thing they called a derangement syndrom because they can't come up with anything sensible.

Shady · February 13, 2011

I'm thinkin the deciding "negative feedback" was the lack of ticket sales.

Could be. But there's no way of knowing forsure. Unless of course you're afflicted with PDS. Then you know for a fact everything that was going on. :rolleyes:

BubberMiley · February 13, 2011

Could be. But there's no way of knowing forsure. Unless of course you're afflicted with PDS. Then you know for a fact everything that was going on.

I like watching the thoroughly pwned squirm when they got nothing. PDS :lol:

Now back to World of Warcraft. :lol:

Wilber · February 13, 2011

Could be. But there's no way of knowing forsure. Unless of course you're afflicted with PDS. Then you know for a fact everything that was going on.

Well seein as the bunch that were putting on this shindig have crawled into a hole since a press release citing unspecified threats we will just have to go on what transpired with their ticket sales and of course the unreliable word of the police regarding threats to Ms Palin's safety.

I don't doubt there was negative reaction to her appearance which may or may not have affected sales but apparently no threats reported to the police or ones that either Palin or the Pacheco foundation care to point out. So, did this thing get canceled because it was going to be a financial disaster or is Sarah retreating to reload or try a flanking movement?

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2011

... So, did this thing get canceled because it was going to be a financial disaster or is Sarah retreating to reload or try a flanking movement?

Not for Gov. Palin, because like President Clinton, her speaking fees are guaranteed!

Shakeyhands · February 13, 2011

I like watching the thoroughly pwned squirm when they got nothing. PDS

Now back to World of Warcraft.

It certainly is interesting how they keep coming back for more though...

Black Dog · February 14, 2011

The same could have been said about the Giffords event. Once again, stop your derangement.

So your argument is that the lack of a specific threat doesn't mean there's no threat? That's absolutely true, but the same could be said of any public event of this nature. That's why they have security precautions, bodyguards etc. and why cancelling an event in the absence of a definite threat is such an unusual move.

If one follows your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, in order to be on the safe side, one would have to never appear in public, an option I strongly suggest Palin consider.

GostHacked · February 14, 2011

It's interesting that people would pay to hear her bullshit, all the while real information that matters and is of important, is free.

guyser · February 14, 2011

I'm thinkin the deciding "negative feedback" was the lack of ticket sales.

Ding ding ding, Wilber wins !

You are correct Wilber, ticket prices were cut in half and still didnt move.

By cancelling using bogus reasons allows them to make claims against costs.

That some here keep hoping for some nefarious security reasons is quite laughable, however it is the norm when they are so publically slapped.

GostHacked · February 14, 2011

Ding ding ding, Wilber wins !

You are correct Wilber, ticket prices were cut in half and still didnt move.

By cancelling using bogus reasons allows them to make claims against costs.

That some here keep hoping for some nefarious security reasons is quite laughable, however it is the norm when they are so publically slapped.

If we are lucky the same thing will happen in 2012 if she decides to run for the presidency.

Shady · February 14, 2011

but the same could be said of any public event of this nature. That's why they have security precautions, bodyguards etc. and why cancelling an event in the absence of a definite threat is such an unusual move.

I completely agree. But I think the issue here is with what seems to be a somewhat inept non-profit group that organized this event.

GostHacked · February 14, 2011

I completely agree. But I think the issue here is with what seems to be a somewhat inept non-profit group that organized this event.

It's just the kind of company she attracts.

WIP · February 14, 2011

It's just the kind of company she attracts.

That's for sure. It's been awhile since there has been any mention of the fact that the only reason why the Tucson Shooter was able to kill and maim so many people, was because his gun had a magazine that carried 30 bullets. Part of the assault weapons ban was a restriction on gun clips to a maximum of 10 bullets; and it was allowed to expire in 2004. So, now that Democratic and Republican politicians are so concerned about their safety, why aren't they discussing gun control measures that the vast majority of Americans want returned? Even the majority of NRA members support the ban on the 30 bullet magazine....but then again, the NRA gets most of its money from weapons manufacturers, not gun owners!

Shady · February 14, 2011

It's just the kind of company she attracts.

Not really. She's spoken for many different groups. Most of which seemed to be fairly competent. That can't be said for this particular group.

Shakeyhands · February 15, 2011

Not really. She's spoken for many different groups. Most of which seemed to be fairly competent. That can't be said for this particular group.

Now we're blaming the incompetence of the organizer???? I thought it was the threats? Which is it?

Shady · February 15, 2011

Now we're blaming the incompetence of the organizer???? I thought it was the threats? Which is it?

The Foundation that organized the event cited security concerns as their reason for cancelling. I don't know if their being truthful. But regardless, they're the one's responsible for cancelling.

DEB19505 · February 18, 2011

I doubt its so much about "threats" to her as it is the people now screaming they don't want the woman to be a speaker. Seems she's lost quite a bit of her base finally. Her show got booted after its first run. No one can tell me she wasn't pushing for more of her reality show. This is a woman who quit her governership in mid term to go make a million off a book so fighting for her "shoot em up, lets go huntin" reality show is not beyond her. Palin is OVER thank God. She has lost enough of her base that in a year or so, people will be going "Sarah Who?". Couldn't happen fast enough.