That’s not a rebuttal.
All right, my mistake. I knew Kilborn did it, and I didn’t realize he had left the Daily Show when he did it.
Kilborn, who once hosted the Daily Show, did it.
Everybody’s panties unbunched now?
Or are we going to continue to move goal posts with this “Well, sure, Jon Stewart is a liberal icon as the current host of the Daily Show, but Craig Kilborn’s a meaningless nobody!”
Correct. It’s a request to refine or further explain the argument, since I don’t understand it. It neither rebuts nor concedes the argument.
Considering you were already caught with your pants down on your Baldwin quote, you might want to refrain on giving fashion lectures.
Do you think Craig Kilborn is a liberal icon? 
Yes, I was. Fair enough. And when I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, and modify both my positions and statements accordingly.
I think he’s on the left, yes. As far as iconography goes, his career hasn’t soared like Stewart’s but he’s not a nobody.
Neither is he a vice presidential nominee. Or really anything at all, except a trivia question.
Incidentally, David Frum has put it as well as anyone:
Answer: No.
Eh. Any pol worth her salt has speech writers for that. Proves nothing other than Frum trying score political points off this tragedy.
As others have pointed out, that’s a pretty deceptive way to describe it. And even so, I condemn it. Craig Kilborn should not have done that.
Interestingly, I’m not saying that. But again, you’re speaking in half-truths. Yes, Sarah Palin is clearly, technically, a “failed VP candidate”… but she’s also a nationally prominent and respected figure, one frequently mentioned as a likely future presidential candidate. She’s one of the top 5 most prominent and influential current republicans, probably top 2, arguably top 1.
As I said, I’m not saying that Sarah Palin “should be understood to control the hearts and minds of all her listeners.” I do not hold her personally directly responsible for what happened. I do not think that she should be charged with accessory to murder, or incitement, or fighting words. I certainly don’t think that she should face censorship of any sort. I do, however, think that people have a responsibility to be aware of the possible results of what they say.
There are various factors which influence how dire those results might be, including:
-what type of people are in your audience
-how many people are in your audience
-the extent to which you can accurately know the above
-the political atmosphere in which you are speaking
-what words and phrases you use
-the context in which your audience is interpreting those words and phrases (ie, if you’ve mentioned guns and gun rights a number of times already in the speech, and then say you want to “target” your opponent, that has a different implication than using the word “target” in an otherwise purely-political-strategy discussion.)
Also, you skipped over the most important part of my previous email:
Frum is a Republican.
That is well put.
My respect for David Frum went up a notch.
Is that really moving the goalposts, though? The Daily Show under Kilborn was a much different creature than it is now. Back then, it wasn’t much different than “Talk Soup” for pop culture, with a much much stronger focus on celebrity gossip and “News of the Weird” happenings. Stewart made it extremely political and topical. By equating Kilborn with the Daily Show, you’re trying to attach the modern understanding and political weight it carries to him.
I know. The only people who hate SP more than the folks on the left are the mainstream Republicans.
Politifactdid it for you and rated it “true”.
Joyce Kaufman actually used Obama’s statement as an example of how this kind of speech is purely metaphorical when she was accused of being inflammatory for her statement: “I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
I’d argue that you’re defining “mainstream Republicans” extremely narrowly with this assertion, given her ubiquity/popularity on Fox News (among other things), but that would be too much of a hijack for the thread.
So in other words… If “my” guy doesn’t win, I’ll shoot the guy who did win???
Nah…“bullets” is just a metaphor for “citizen involvement and solidarity.”
Why were they crosshairs, instead of stars, dots, squares, or some other sort of demarcation?
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard people say “he’s got (blank) in the crosshairs”. Whether a quarterback, comedian, competitor, cute girl or whatever, the word is commonly used as a metaphor to connote focus and attention. It’s probably the most common word for the cross-inside-circle shape as well. Hell, I’d bet reticle is even more common than gunsight.
Gunsight, I think, is much more literal. The word can’t stray to far from the gun.
To describe my opinion with a stupid illustration:
A search for crosshair yields a few weapons and lots of sneakers, sunglasses and motherboards.
A search for gunsight yields primarily weapons and hills named Gunsight, apparently. Huh.