Opinions don’t matter here. The question is whether the left and right both use violent imagery equally. My link, as well as the mention of the book and film, show that there is plenty of violent imagery aimed at the right.
Of course not! Nobody outside of the UK would even know about the film! And now the violent imagery has to directly result in someone trying to bump off a public official in order to qualify?
I’ve not once suggested that you did. Go back and read my posts. Your repeated attempts to slander me by suggesting I am putting words in your mouth are becoming tiresome and I’m asking you politely to stop it.
I suppose you didn’t bother to read the rest of the first post in this thread other than the title?
Sure we can. We can look at ratings, at popular appeal. Given the dismal voter turnout percentages, in fact, we might say that MORE people are influenced by a Craig Kilborn or a Bill Maher or a Jon Stewart than by elected officials; I’m willing to bet that more people watch Jon Stewart than voted for Palin for governor.
And note, by the way, that people had no choice about voting for Palin in a national capacity. She was the VP candidate; people VOTED for McCain.
And just for record, who put Palin on his ticket? McCain, that’s who. Further McCain thought Palin would be a qualified replacement should the unfortunate happen.
Now why do you think McCain put Palin on his ticket? Did he do it to help is campaign? if so, what does that say about those he was wooing?
Was there any Republican objection to ms Reload?
I see you have a limited understanding of a general concept. It’s dissection into derivatives within the legal system is irrelevant. Michelle Malkin is not a credible source, as has been demonstrated within this thread. You have also been shown not to be a credible source within this thread for the same reason. I doubt you cite the case of Wile E. Coyote vs. Acme in actual legal proceedings, which is the equivalent of your and Ms. Malkin’s evidence. Your cite game is not a substitute for substantive argument. Had you been reading the thread instead of whining you would have found credible cites from both sides of the argument which demonstrate that your conclusions were unfounded, and shifted the burden to you. You still fail to provide evidence to support your opinion. I would be perfectly willing to look at such, and if it is credible and demonstrative of your point, I would feel the obligation prevent further evidence of my own, or change my view.
And my answer would be the same regarding Huff Post. If you believe there is evidence to support your contention, stand up and present it yourself. So far you have engaged in the curious fallacy of* appeal to non-authority*.
So do you still claim that hearsay is a relevant concept here?
If so, how can ANY off-board source be used for evidence? Hearsay is, by definition, the out of court statement being used in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. If you’re saying that our current discussion is “Court,” then any statements outside it are outside court?
Now I don’t see reason to disagree with that assessment, but I don’t think it helps the Republican case much. Honestly I think Palin was McCain’s biggest regret, however acting as an agent of the Republican party, he did endorse her, and I saw little if any dissent on this from the Republican party.
Ohhh, I guess that makes it OKAY then. BOTH parties can and should engage in violent imagery. FINE! NOTHING to complain about here :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’m not arguing about hearsay, you are. I am arguing that you continue to whine instead of presenting a cogent argument and evidence to support it. I won’t continue along this line. If you have something to add to the debate I’ll be happy to respond.
Yes, but during a campaign season one does not hear much grumbling against the party’s chosen candidate. Now, if she had been named as a possible VP candidate during the Primaries, every other Republican hopeful would have been all over her like cliches on a cliched thing. Isn’t that how partisan politics works?
Then you should report the following posts to the board’s management, since it appears someone hacked your account to post them:
In the unlikely event that those posts simply slipped your mind, would you now say that you WERE arguing hearsay? That in fact you were the person who first brought up the concept of hearsay as a rationale?
Again, who chose that candidate? McCain, and how did McCain get in a position to choose the Republican VP? Further, if McCain, acting as an representative of Republican interests, didn’t choose Palin because he felt she appealed to his party, why did he choose her?
Well, the actual definition and technical use of “hearsay” is not dispositive. I’m not sure if its a penumbra or an emanation, just that its not dispositive.
But by the time the Vice Presidential candidates are chosen and announced, which is after the Presidential candidate has their nomination authorized by their party, the focus shifts from “appealing to their party” to “able to win the general election.”
McCain seems to have believed that being “spunky,” “down-home” and photogenic would be enough to appeal to the non-partisan members of the electorate. You know, the people who swing elections because they don’t vote exclusively by party affiliation. There are a lot of us out here.
Anyway, McCain was wrong, and Palin did not appeal enough to the general electorate to get him the election. But I don’t believe her whack-a-doodleness manifested until she got a good taste of the media spotlight.
This is Great Debates- please, what insult did I offer, and why didn’t you report my post to the mods?
And I’ve shown that you failed massively in doing so, at least in regards to the book and the movie. Neither of those demonstrate violent imagery on the part of Liberals. Or is any media which depicts anything bad happening to a Rightist which *might *be written by someone who has voted Liberal in any way in the past somehow a depiction of violent imagery perpetrated by the Left as a whole?
In case you had trouble parsing that sentence, try this on for size: Please demonstrate that the book and/or the movie were written by Liberals for Liberals. 'Cause right now, they both seem like fiction to me. One examined what would happen if the sitting US President were assassinated (and, again, was produced by a *British *film company), and the other was two characters talking about killing the President with “Manchurian scorpions”.
You know, personally, I’ve never read the book nor seen that movie. For Liberal propaganda, they’re not doing a real bang-up job. It makes me wonder why you’re so fascinated with them. Possibly just to have something to point to, an opportunity to say, “But you guys do it too!”? As I’ve said, there are other, better examples. Chasing after these two examples actually *weakens *your case.
The book and the movie were both entertainment. What’s the intended message of “lock and load” and the gunsights? Fun and games?