Now, I’m curious though. Did he in fact make the statement about bringing the gun to a knife fight, or was that satire too?
I believe he did - during the election. The quote is:
I think it was a riff from the movie “The Untouchables”.
It sounds like part of Sean Connery’s speech in “The Untouchables” about “The Chicago Way”:
I’m reluctant to search on “Obama”, “gun”, “knife” here at work. Understandably, I hope. So I don’t know if Obama actually said that.
I won’t give ANY conservative that pass. Presumably, they’ve read books and went to history courses at some point in their lives.
Did Palin’s web site actually put gun sights over specific people’s faces? The graphic I saw from the Huffington Post was a map of the US with gun sights on the rough locations of the Congressional districts on the map. No faces. Was there another one?
I have no idea what this means.
Actors obviously sway public opinion when they speak. And when actors say obnoxious or inciting things, it is wrong, and they shouldn’t do it.
There is, however, an important difference. Sean Penn (to pull a random name out of a hat, no idea if he’s said specific things along this vein) is clearly “on my side” on a number of (although not all) issues. But I’m not an officially registered dues paying member of any organization which has endorsed Sean Penn (to the best of my knowledge). Certainly not one that has through a deliberative and democratic process chosen Sean Penn as one of its most prominent national leaders. That’s what’s different between Sean Penn and Sarah Palin.
You do realize what an obnoxious piece of phrasing that is, right?
It’s 100% wrong to put a snipers wanted picture over Bush’s face. I don’t see how much clearer I can get. I condemn it.
But who was it done by? Someone who even in the vaguest sense represents me (a registered democrat) and/or the Democratic party? Or some random guy at a rally, or borderline media celebrity like Dan Savage? If Joe Biden did that and I’ve been failing to condemn it up until now, well, I’ll do it now, and I’ve been an unknowing hypocrite for not condemning it sooner. If not, well, then, what’s your point?
I obviously can’t speak for every liberal on the SDMB, nor will I hold you accountable for the actions of every conservative. But I haven’t hand-waved away any such examples. I acknowledge and condemn them. What I will not do is accept them as equivalent to examples on the right. So if I had said “no liberal or democratic person has EVER engaged in inappropriately violent political rhetoric, adding to the overheated political atmosphere of the times”, then, with the examples you’ve provided, I would have to either admit I was wrong or be a jackass. But of course, not being some bastard love child of Der Trihs and Diogenese, I would never make such a blanket statement.
But I strongly maintain that the vast, vast majority of inflammatory-to-violence rhetoric in the political sphere has come from the right, and that is particularly true if one restricts the analysis to people who have official standing (ie, nominees, elected officials, members of staffs), and even more true if one extends that to best-selling authors and pundits.
What is your claim? That the levels are equal or close to equal? I disagree. That, whatever the levels actually are, MaxThevool is not a totally objective analyzer of them? Cheerfully conceded, as long as you admit that Bricker isn’t either. That all public figures should be careful about such rhetoric? I agree, except that expressing it in terms of “all” can be a weaselly way to imply equivalence.
It doesn’t really matter. The statement is not inflammatory and is in fact common-sense good advice. If someone pulls a knife, the very best thing you can have is a gun. I thought Republicans’ only saving grace was that they understood this, but I guess I was wrong.
In any case, if there is ever a case where a congresswoman takes out a knife, and some mentally ill person takes Obama’s advice and shoots her, then the President’s rhetoric should certainly be criticized.
Yes, I do. But since Palin’s site never had photos of specific individuals with gunsights over them, your question is meaningless for this debate.
Can you give me an example of what she could have done to prevent this guy from going on a violent rampage? Was she supposed to sneak into his room at night and steal his gun? Was she supposed to use grammar mind control to make him not think about killing anyone?
The host of the Daily Show did it.
And I don’t believe it’s realistic to say, “Hey, we wash our hands of these media figures, but your failed VP candidate should be understood to control the hearts and minds of all her listeners.”
Wow. That’s about the most dishonest thing I’ve seen posted here.
Bricker, you’re doing it again. Craig Kilborn, who left the Daily Show at the end of 1998, did this bit in 2000 as host of The Late Late Show, which he left in 2004. I’m guessing that Kilborn, who more recently hosted a show on Fox, not that it matters, is a liberal, but he is not the liberal icon that Jon Stewart is. This kind of shit has earned you a reputation for dishonesty that frequently outweighs the good arguments you make.
No faces, but there was a key below the map identifying the specific individuals to be [del]targeted[/del] surveyed.
That’s not the problem. There are lots of people with worse disorders than her. The problem is the very large (as in 10s of millions) of people who support her despite her constant lies, quitting the governorship, having her knocked up children be spokesperson for abstinence, and naming her kid after hockey equipment.
Let’s all stop using the word “gunsight”.
This is a gunsight. The word you are looking for is “crosshair” or possibly “target”. The reason you are not using “crosshair” or “target” is because those words don’t always imply guns or violence.
People want the crosshairs in question to imply guns or violence, so they start calling them “gunsights”.
Lame.
The crosshairs in question are definitely gunsights. Gunsights, gunsights, gunsights.
Can you provide an example of the use of the word “crosshairs” that doesn’t imply the use of a gunsight? As far as I know, the only common usage of the word and image of “crosshairs” is their meaning (literal or metaphorical) of “component of a gunsight”.
I’m aware that, as the Palin team is spinning it, there are also crosshairs in surveyors’ equipment, but I absolutely defy you to find an example of such a usage in popular culture, as opposed to specifically surveying venues.
To be honest “crosshairs” don’t sound any better to my ear. 
I’m not seeing a meaningful distinction between crosshair and gunsight in this context.