Yeah, there’s a difference. I’m just trying to understand if there is enough of a difference to make one OK and one not OK. **Bo **offered an explanation about why he thought one site was OK. Do you agree with him?
So you see the difference between the two, but are unable to make any decision about how that difference relates to anything else?
What does your moral compass tell you, John Mace, about the differences between the two methods of delineating an election goal and whether or not one may be more or less appropriate than the other?
Why bother? They’re denying, backpedalling and obfuscating. So, since the cowardice and dishonesty is readily apparent, why bother?
Battlefield language is pretty common in politics. It’s an easy analogy to use, and it makes sense on a national scale. The more you narrow your scope, the more I think it becomes a little too morbid, the rhetoric a little too close and personal. I’m not sure if there’s a clear demarcation, but Palin’s map definitely crossed it. I remember seeing it when it came out and being pretty disgusted with it. However, there was a lot of pretty blatant language coming out at that time. Starting with the town hall meetings over the summer Congressional break of '09 when people were showing up with assault rifles and into the heated election year of 2010, there seemed to be a very strong pander to not just 2nd Amendment supporters, but the fringe militia-type supporters. Glenn Beck certainly wasn’t helping (odd, that…), Bachmann was whipping her supporters into a frenzy, Palin starts talking about reloading…
It all adds up. In that sort of context, I would probably demonize the DLC’s map as well for adding to the problem. But the left doesn’t really have voting blocs where gun language can be used effectively or for a specific purpose, and again - that DLC map was national and didn’t target any specific individual. And most importantly, the DLC isn’t a national office holder or vocal ideologist with a massive audience.
I’d like to add, what place does brandishing weapons and threatening second amendment solutions and taking out people etc have in “reasoned discourse”?
I call bullshit on the idea that only one side of the coin has to make nice nice. I think it’s all bullshit anyway. Of the several “good Amurricans” who were gonna kick my sorry librul ass, I’m still waiting to see even one make good on it or even TRY to. Sorry ass trash talking cowards.
I’m just trying to understand the rules, according to Bo.
Gun imagery is OK as long as it’s not associated with a particular individual. Is that correct?
Personally, I would say that gun imagery is not OK under any circumstances. I guess you have loser standards. That’s fine, as long as you can make a coherent argument as to why.
I see a difference in targeting a state for an election win, and targetting a person with crosshairs and the statement that they are “someone who needs to be brought down”.
And I don’t have loser standards at all. My standards are totally winner standards.
Incidentally, why is that you think I’m the only person who sees the discrepancy about this? Haven’t you been reading the responses in this thread before page 4?
It doesn’t.
[quote=]
I call bullshit on the idea that only one side of the coin has to make nice nice. I think it’s all bullshit anyway. Of the several “good Amurricans” who were gonna kick my sorry librul ass, I’m still waiting to see even one make good on it or even TRY to. Sorry ass trash talking cowards.
[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear, I wasn’t calling for only one side to make nice. I was pointing out the irony of one side asking the other side to make nice while calling them “inbred retards”. I would have thought that was obvious on a board known for the intelligence of the average poster. Perhaps not.
Apparently some Republicans think it’s OK to talk about shooting Democrats, but it’s very much NOT OK to talk about who those Republicans are:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/gop-senator-urges-media-talk-palins-violent-rhetoric/
Now I know this sounds a lot like GOPers trying to force the rest of us to live by their pc-speak rules, but apparently there’s a full justification for their position somewhere in the constitution. 
OK, does “lying spineless cowards” fit better?
via
*“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights,” she said.
“It’s surveyor’s symbols,” the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. Bruce, a Palin supporter, describes herself as "a gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent Conservative. " Her show is promoted as a “chick with a gun and a microphone.”
Mansour agreed. She said that the graphic was contracted out to a professional. They approved it quickly without thinking about it. “We never imagined, it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent,” she said. Rather, she said, that it was simply “crosshairs that you would see on a map.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She did not, however, mention the “don’t retreat, instead- RELOAD!” Palin tweet that went out shortly after the graphic was posted on both her Facebook page and SarahPac’s website, directing them to the graphic. The tweet turned quickly into a Palin mantra. Many, even then, urged her to stop using such violent rhetoric. If she heard them, she did not retreat.*
And the sites that so proudly used to have “liberal hunting licenses” are busy taking them down now. If they were so proud of them last week, well shit! Leave them up now.
Eh. I’ve never claimed to be a good speller. If you argument rests on the fact that I misspelled a word, then that’s the thinnest of ice indeed.
To the issue at hand… We both recognize a difference. I’m just trying to establish, without any shadow of a doubt, that you are OK with gun imagery as part of the political discourse as long as no individual names are mentioned. Is that right?
You’re statement does not accurately reflect my thoughts on this matter.
So you are retracting your response to **Bricker **where you offered an explanation as to why it was OK?
That wasn’t what Bricker asked, nor was it in my reply. Perhaps you could go back and quote me saying that something was OK? Surely you can do that, right? Surely you haven’t been pussyfooting around, trying to get me in a "gotcha"moment, right? Surely you aren’t making shit up, and then trying to make me defend things I haven’t said, right?
:rolleyes:
from the very first hit when Googling “Use of a transit”
So which side is all butt hurt now because others are calling them on this second amendment bullshit? Last week it was second amendment let’s shoot somebody take the country back kill a commie hunt a liberal. Right? Right? Don’t lecture me about civility.
I’m not so damn stupid I don’t “get” the imagery. But I am also not so stupid that I can’t “get it” when the same people NOW start taking down, hiding and denying what they were so DAMN proud of not that long ago. I hate the hypocrisy of it and the cowardice of it.
That’s right, cowardice. Either you believed it or you didn’t. Either you meant it and stand by it or you didn’t. Anything less can get the fuck out. I’d rather have an honest enemy.
I think everyone’s anger at Palin is misguided. Jared Loughner didn’t act out because of any rhetoric Sarah Palin spewed. Rather he was a creation of everything she and every other right-wing conservative stands for these days: destroy public services (including the publically-funded mental health programs that could’ve helped this guy receive treatment) and guarantee a gun in the hands of everyone who wants it.
Forget all the right-wing rhetoric. Sarah Palin’s crosshairs and Glenn Beck’s chalkboard nonsense didn’t set this guy off. Over-the-top rhetoric didn’t cause this guy to target public officials. It’s the right-wing public policies that did. The shameful way we’ve eliminated mental health programs from state budgets that did. And the “don’t-you-ever-dare-limit-gun-ownership” bullshit that did.
That’s not to say all of this right-wing rhetoric won’t set someone off in an act of violence at some point-- it may or may not-- but Saturday’s act of violence was carried out by a mentally ill man who had absolutely no business owning a gun or being able to walk into a fucking Walmart and buy boxes of ammo.
The victims of Saturday’s bloodbath fell prey to conservative policies and legislation run amok in the Wild West.
The lesson we need to learn from this: Our country needs to pay more attention to treating the mentall ill-- government-run social services *aren’t *a bad thing, they keep society at large safe and productive; and we need to stop being so fucking obsessed with being fucking allowed to own a fucking gun.
I’m honestly wondering if anyone has had a rational response yet for this:
I think it’s a crucial step we sort of skipped. Or, maybe I skipped it in reading the thread.
No trick, just deliver a quote.
And I’m on board with Happy Lendervedder 100%!
It’s gone past that now. I know that psycho ca’t be pinned on Palin, and I never said he should be. HOWEVER!!! (stamp foot for emphasis) The postuirng and threats that were so “cool” until this week are not going to be fogotten NOW. Not since someone HAS been murdered. All people had to do, to placate me, woulod have been something like “we realize our hunting stickers and crosshair cartoons were in poor taste and are taking them down.” Or, some empty but at least polite gesture of condolences. Instead we have a lot of crap about “I never said” when we know better or “I never meant” when we know better. Fuck that. You all meant plenty of it last week. didntcha
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/06/16/second-amendment-remedies-that-suggests-treason/
It looks pretty clear to me. Armed revolt, the killing (taking out) of Reid (and probably others) and I imagine her installment as ruler. Or something.
Then there is Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload”.
And the following
http://mountainsageblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2009-06-12-LiberalHuntingSticker.jpg
Last week, I found these pictures ALMOST amusing. They ain’t so damn funny anymore, are they.
How does one “reload” a transit?