Daily KOS has a "TARGET LIST"

Onceler said:
Whew - that took awhile for you to admit.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

another dishonest cherry pick of my post....you're such an intellectual midget onceler

the only way you can try and win a debate is to LIE, just like you did with cutting my post apart

just because someone is more vocal does not at all mean it doesn't exist, and certaintly doesn't mean there isn't equal blame to go around, just look at how much hate palin gets, thats one person. its the height of dishonesty, then again, that is par for course for you.

you're the kind of hack that if the pubs win in '12 and the left kicks up the hate, you will point to the prior four years and blame that, not the left and you will of course ignore all 8 years of bush.

carry on
 
Onceler said:
Your efforts to make this a 50/50 split over the past couple of days have been ridiculous. On virtually every issue, there are counter-examples from the "other side" to support a "they do it too!" You have ONLY ever cared that the left condemns those on the left for things they are criticizing the right for. It is your m.o., and everyone knows that.

In this case, I have argued why I think the right is at the forefront. I am not going to give "equal time" when I see the right as poisoning the atmosphere MORE than the left has, and they have since Obama was elected. Even SF stated that it has gone up more than usual over the past 2 years, and that the party out of power is generally the loudest voice.

Let me ask you this: do you think both sides are EQUALLY responsible for the downward spiral in tone & rhetoric since 2008? A true 50/50 split, where both the left & right are equally culpable?
Click to expand...

If you confine it to the time frame of since the election of 2008.... no it is not 50/50.

But that is again due to how you CHOOSE to confine the time frame. Go back to a time frame of 'since the 2000 elections' and the pendulum swings more towards the Dems than the Reps. They were by far more vitriolic from 2001-2008.

Go back to since the 1992 election and the pendulum swings yet again. Each cycle the idiots try to outdo the idiots of the other party. Hence the ever increasing level of vitriolic rhetoric.

If they don't tone it down out of respect for what occurred, even though what occurred was the actions of one nut, then you are going to see the pendulum swing back towards the middle yet again. As now both parties have a degree of power.
 
Superfreak said:
It is only 'different' to you. To any sane person, it is the same type of message politicians have been using for decades. To pretend that anyone meant people should literally go out and shoot the opponents is nothing short of partisan rhetoric.

You just WANT this to be 'different' because it paints the pretty 'Republicans are the evilzzz' picture you like so much.
Click to expand...


I never said it meant that people should literally go out and shoot the opponents and it doesn't mean that to any sane person. I said it was reckless and fucking stupid because it can easily be misinterpreted by the fucking crazies.

Then again, I don't even know what "Don't retreat. instead -- RELOAD" even means.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I never said it meant that people should literally go out and shoot the opponents and it doesn't mean that to any sane person. I said it was reckless and fucking stupid because it can easily be misinterpreted by the fucking crazies.

Then again, I don't even know what "Don't retreat. instead -- RELOAD" even means.
Click to expand...

LMAO... the 'crazies' think that dogs talk to them, they believe in conspiracies that don't exist, etc... They could take a phrase like 'we must defeat person x in the next election' and misinterpret that.... because they are fucking CRAZY.

The phrase "don't retreat, reload" is fairly simple to understand. I bet even Yurt could figure it out. Pretending you don't understand it is an insult to your own level of intellect. You may be a douche bag and party hack, but even you are not that stupid.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, that's what I thought, you have a DOUBLE STANDARD here.

Thanks for confirming that!:good4u:
Click to expand...


I was fucking with you. Apparently, you're not a film buff. Google the chicago way untouchables.

It was inappropriate and he shouldn't have said it. If a knife fight broke out between Democrats and Republicans I would hold Obama responsible if a Democrat brought a gun.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I was fucking with you. Apparently, you're not a film buff. Google the chicago way untouchables.

It was inappropriate and he shouldn't have said it. If a knife fight broke out between Democrats and Republicans I would hold Obama responsible if a Democrat brought a gun.
Click to expand...

So no one should ever say anything that could ever be possibly construed as advocating violence in any way? It doesn't matter what the intentions are, or what is actually meant, or that it is not intended to be taken literally, we have to watch what we say based on how some idiot might interpret it?
 
Dixie said:
So no one should ever say anything that could ever be possibly construed as advocating violence in any way? It doesn't matter what the intentions are, or what is actually meant, or that it is not intended to be taken literally, we have to watch what we say based on how some idiot might interpret it?
Click to expand...


No. As a general rule, politicians and political operatives should refrain from using violent, incendiary political rhetoric and imagery.
 
Dixie said:
So no one should ever say anything that could ever be possibly construed as advocating violence in any way? It doesn't matter what the intentions are, or what is actually meant, or that it is not intended to be taken literally, we have to watch what we say based on how some idiot might interpret it?
Click to expand...

The stuff you guys are trying to compare is ridiculous. The "knife/gun" line is straight out of the Untouchables, and the reference is a tongue in cheek allusion to the "Chicago way."

I just don't see how it compares to a map with crosshairs over certain districts with a kind of creepy allusion to some sort of "solution," or one of the GOP's most visibile voices saying she wants her constituents armed & dangerous and ready to fight. Those are a bit more literal, imo.
 
Onceler said:
The stuff you guys are trying to compare is ridiculous. The "knife/gun" line is straight out of the Untouchables, and the reference is a tongue in cheek allusion to the "Chicago way."

I just don't see how it compares to a map with crosshairs over certain districts with a kind of creepy allusion to some sort of "solution," or one of the GOP's most visibile voices saying she wants her constituents armed & dangerous and ready to fight. Those are a bit more literal, imo.
Click to expand...

And that's just it... it's YOUR OPINION! Nothing more! You can dismiss the "bring a gun" comments by Obama, but what if a crazed gunman had gone out and unloaded on a TEA Party rally the next day? Would you be blaming it on Obama's rhetoric? Because that is exactly what you seem to be wanting to do here.

You just can't have this both ways, and not be a hypocrite, sorry, just no way to make that happen for ya! Either it's okay for people to make these kind of comments, and we should hold crazies responsible for their craziness, or it's not okay for either side to make these comments... It can't be okay for liberal democrats to say whatever the fuck they feel like saying, and not okay for conservatives.
 
Dixie said:
And that's just it... it's YOUR OPINION! Nothing more! You can dismiss the "bring a gun" comments by Obama, but what if a crazed gunman had gone out and unloaded on a TEA Party rally the next day? Would you be blaming it on Obama's rhetoric? Because that is exactly what you seem to be wanting to do here.

You just can't have this both ways, and not be a hypocrite, sorry, just no way to make that happen for ya! Either it's okay for people to make these kind of comments, and we should hold crazies responsible for their craziness, or it's not okay for either side to make these comments... It can't be okay for liberal democrats to say whatever the fuck they feel like saying, and not okay for conservatives.
Click to expand...

Dixie - first of all, context is important in this discussion. It's silly to argue that it isn't.

Second, it's crazy irony that you're even chiming in on this. When your ideas were rejected at the ballot box in 2008, you spent months telling everyone to prepare for revolution, talking about your armed bunker, and making references to putting holes in people's heads.

I thought we were headed for Thunderdome after reading your posts in that time period.
 
Onceler said:
Dixie - first of all, context is important in this discussion. It's silly to argue that it isn't.

Second, it's crazy irony that you're even chiming in on this. When your ideas were rejected at the ballot box in 2008, you spent months telling everyone to prepare for revolution, talking about your armed bunker, and making references to putting holes in people's heads.

I thought we were headed for Thunderdome after reading your posts in that time period.
Click to expand...

No, you have me mistaken for someone else, I have no inclination to give you any warning to prepare for revolution, I full hope, if there is a revolution, you are completely unprepared for it.

And you are right about context, it means everything... for instance, in context, Sarah Palin never claimed we should go out an shoot pinhead liberals in the head with a Glock. It's just not there, in context. You're trying desperately to make it be there, to claim that's what she advocated, because you are a political hack, who sees this tragedy as a political opportunity to advance your political party, or tarnish the reputation of your adversaries. That's the CONTEXT we need to be focused on, your HYPOCRISY!
 
NigelTufnel said:
By contrast, Palin puts crosshairs on the map, says "we've diagnosed the problem, help us prescribe the solution," colors the target red for districts where the incumbent did not seek reelection and says "don't retreat. RELOAD."

Now, you can pretend its all the same if you want to, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

okay you don't accept the parallel to the dKos ad.....how about the DLC?....
BP_0405_heartland1.gif

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
 
NigelTufnel said:
"Don't retreat, instead -- RELOAD" together with crosshairs and "We've diagnosed the problem . . . help us prescribe the solution." Nothing to suggest violence there.
Click to expand...

This is going to be a turning point in Palin's political career. Either this will spell the end to her 15 minutes of fame or she will have to make a decision as to whether she wants to be Ronald Regan or Rush Limbaugh. If she continues with her inflamatory rhetoric she'll be the darling of the right but she'll alienate the vast political center. If she want's to be like Regan she'll need to change her rhetoric cause, say what you like about Regan, you could talk to the man and you could agree to disagree with him and still walk away liking the guy. If Palin has true aspirations for higher office then she will need to walk that path. If she want's to become a wealthy pundit, then she can stay on her present course and feed raw meet to the true believers.
 
Onceler said:
I guess that could incite the bow & arrow crowd...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite the same. Granted it's skiring the edge but they are targeting regions not persons. nor were they combining that imagary with inflamatory rhetoric though they too would be well advised to think twice before using such imagery. Nor do I think the fact that one faction has used this kind of imagery justify another faction using this kind of imagery. Wrong is wrong.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't accept it there either. Clicking your link and placing the graphic in the context of the larger piece, there is nothing there that is suggestive of violence whatsoever.
Click to expand...


that's the point!!! Palin's use of the same rhetorical technique also makes NO CALLS FOR VIOLENCE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top