Please defend Palin

Just curious. Any of you right wing hacks want to defend Palin's "target" symbolism wasn't actually a target? Speak up now all you wonderfully rational propagandists.

 

Tom, would you like to see some screen shots of Democrats whno have posted the targets, or would you rather take this topic back?

 

It is absolutely no worse that BO's "'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" and NUMEROUS other references by both reps and dems and probably more independents.

 

You can post whatever you like Jack. I am just pointing out that the targets that were targets before the Arizona tragedy, Palin's mouthpieces are now calling the targets "navigational tools" after the fact. I'm just wanting to hear from those that will defend that obvious back peddle.

 

Yeah...the old republican "they did it too" response. Don't address the point. Rather point the finger at somebody else. Way to man up.

 

I heard the stories but never actually saw the image(s) in question. Can you post them or a link to them so I can see exactly what they were?

 

What needs defending? Using figurative targets, bullseyes, cross hairs, etc is pretty standard fare in politics. I rec'd an email forward yesterday that had a compilation of 28 seperate clips of dims/libs (from Biden on down to MSNBC talking heads) using the same rhetoric, in fact during the 2004 campaign the DNC used bulleye targets to pinpoint particular races & candidates.

 

Yeah...the old liberal point the finger first accusation even though we (the liberals) do it more. If the liberals point first and scream the loudest then it is everyone else's problem. Come on, Tom. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Certainly the talk of Second Amendment solutions, don't retreat, reload, we are in a war for our culture, we need to take back our country, and other regularly thrown about phrases do nothing to bring down the vitriol in public discourse. And of course we don't have the ability to link any of these words to the acts of one loner gunman.
Something we have seen recently is the repercussions of bullying by teenagers in schools, online, and in the streets. It only takes one kid going too far for someone to end up dead at the hands of a bully or even by the victim’s own hands. We can see these effects directly between the bully and the victim but is societal bullying with loaded words really any different? The fact that the vast majority of us are not pushed over the edge does not mean that these words do not directly affect those already teetering on the edge of sanity, reality, or violence. When we have a national culture of political bullying of one another, there are bound to be victims such as we witnessed in Tuscan. Maybe our children are just following the examples we have given them. Up to this point, I have always taken pride in my generation but lately I have begun to wonder if we are really doing the next generation any favors. I hope that history is kinder to us than we have been to each other.

 

Are you really saying that Loughner's actions were triggered by "a national culture of political bullying of one another"? Please share any evidence that you have for such an accusation.

 

Then why you do you, tomc, Dupnik, every NBC reporter, etc insist on bring ing it up at every opportunity??

So now we are stretching political discourse you don't agree with even further? Now it is to blame for bullying in the school?

Perhaps you should join with Dupnik and work on his federal Civility Board thing. You know, sometimes the act of a deranged person is simply a result of his own issues.

 

If I could, you know I would. If you could prove that there was no connection, you would also do it. Seems like we're in the same boat.

 

It's idiotic to claim the standard of proof is simply "it can't be disproven". What if someone claims Obama told him to do it? Or a hotdog made him do it? Using Dr Moen-logic, if you can't disprove it, well, it has to be true.

 

I have no idea which rules you go by, but in my country, you are innocent until proven guilty. You are so far from "proven" that it is not worth discussing. So far there has been ZERO evidence presented (even by your cohort sheriff Nudnik) that it is tantamount to proof that Loughner was apolitical.

However, the real point was your comments;

Just what can you call making baseless inflammatory comments other than "political bullying"? Please do explain. So far in this thread, your opponents have been very civil and non accusatory, yet you are disturbed by the the apparent aura generated by your own bullying. Go for it!

 

Fact is Palin and her crew proudly displayed crosshairs targeting certain parts of the country and was proud of the rhetoric. Now...um...well...we didn't really mean crosshairs. Gimme a friggin' break. The spotlight comes on them because they say this stupid nonsense, then the party of "responsibility" runs like cockroaches when their rhetoric aligns itself with the insanity that occurred in Arizona. One nutjob did it, but a nutjob party helped to inspire the nut.

 

Here ya go. Straight from Fox noise.

Palin Puts Gun Sights On

 

Fact is BO and his crew proudly threatened to shoot his opponents and was proud of the rhetoric. Now...um...well...we didn't really mean "bring a gun". Gimme a friggin' break. The spotlight comes on them because they say this stupid nonsense, then the party of "pass-the-buck" runs like cockroaches when their rhetoric aligns itself with the insanity that occurred in Arizona. One nutjob did it, but a nutjob party helped to inspire the nut.

BTW, which came first - BO's gun or Palin's cross hairs?

 

Don't be a Dupnik.

 

Pathetic...but typical.