Gabriella Giffords Assasinated...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in that campain event, the word "target" is obviously a play-on with regard to the shooting range target. Millions of people enjoy shooting ranges, so not sure how that is a violent event. might as well be shooting basketballs into a net.

A lot of politics is about symbolism. When a candidate organizes a campaign event, the symbolic value of that event is very important. As such, the symbolism of shooting guns at human-shapped targets (with names written on them) is very different from the symbolism of shooting basketballs into a net. That seems so obvious as to not require explanation. But, to put it another way, I get lots of invitations for fundraisers hosted in local restaurants. But, I've never been invited to a fundraiser at a strip club. Do you think that is because strip club owners are not politically active or because the symbolism would not be helpful to a candidate?

And Joe Manchin (WV) does this means? http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/ad-watch-joe-manchin-takes-aim-literally-at-cap-and-trade.html

Should Cap and Trade supporters get extra security as a result?

In one of my earlier posts in this thread I criticized Manchin's commercial, saying that needing a gun to respond to a piece of paper suggests masculinity issues. But, Manchin shot at a bill, not a human-shapped poster representing supporters of that bill. As a result, I don't see how Cap and Trade supporters might be in danger, unless that danger was posed by those on Manchin's side of the issue -- largely Republicans.

Contrast shooting a bill with telling your supporters to target an individual and then having them shoot at targets shaped like a person. Oh, I forgot, that's just like bowling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is politically bad for Obama that he smells terrible. Most politicians can make comebacks like Blagojavich, Bush etc.... but having a genetic dispostion to smell horrible makes people less likely to follow your leadership. Thats why it's important that everybody know how rank Obama smells before they make up their mind to allow them to be their leader.

This makes sense to you, and that is why you are deranged.

Interesting theory that it is a genetic disposition, though. Would you care to elaborate?

I'm glad you asked. His wife and children indicate he smell so bad in the morning that they have to stay away from his bed. Since this happens on a daily basis: and since I assume he is intelligent enough to try to keep himself clean: the logical deduction (scientifically speaking) is that he has a genetic predisposition to smell terrible and it is difficult for him to manage it.

[Anonymous]

Obamas horrible odor also gets all over the White House and even his airplane! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2008/10/08/cbss-reynolds-obamas-campaign-plane-smells-terrible-most-time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is politically bad for Obama that he smells terrible. Most politicians can make comebacks like Blagojavich, Bush etc.... but having a genetic dispostion to smell horrible makes people less likely to follow your leadership. Thats why it's important that everybody know how rank Obama smells before they make up their mind to allow them to be their leader.

This makes sense to you, and that is why you are deranged.

Interesting theory that it is a genetic disposition, though. Would you care to elaborate?

I'm glad you asked. His wife and children indicate he smell so bad in the morning that they have to stay away from his bed. Since this happens on a daily basis: and since I assume he is intelligent enough to try to keep himself clean: the logical deduction (scientifically speaking) is that he has a genetic predisposition to smell terrible and it is difficult for him to manage it.

That is logical to you. You use A very interesting form of deduction. So where exactly do these smell genes lie, and how are they tied to political ideology?

[Anonymous]

But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is politically bad for Obama that he smells terrible. Most politicians can make comebacks like Blagojavich, Bush etc.... but having a genetic dispostion to smell horrible makes people less likely to follow your leadership. Thats why it's important that everybody know how rank Obama smells before they make up their mind to allow them to be their leader.

This makes sense to you, and that is why you are deranged.

Interesting theory that it is a genetic disposition, though. Would you care to elaborate?

I'm glad you asked. His wife and children indicate he smell so bad in the morning that they have to stay away from his bed. Since this happens on a daily basis: and since I assume he is intelligent enough to try to keep himself clean: the logical deduction (scientifically speaking) is that he has a genetic predisposition to smell terrible and it is difficult for him to manage it.

That is logical to you. You use A very interesting form of deduction. So where exactly do these smell genes lie, and how are they tied to political ideology?

Not being a geneticist I am not certain of the exact location of the smell genes on the double helix, however, like the poor Obama children, I also have the urge to put a clothespin on my nose when being around odiferous people like the President. Especially when trying to deal with important business without being destracted by the awful eminations emitted by the bacteria that tends to fester on the poor soul. It is possible that the President is just really sloppy and doesn't know that he smells (Michelle indicates he doesn't pick up his dirty socks), but that worries me about his attention to detail and general common sense.

[Anonymous]

Spelling bee champion meeting with our dashing young President. Awsome and insightful photo. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/6B2446F9-749A-466B-B493-FB7D79A11AC4/BE004155.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/BE004155.html&usg=__iZ5voLJPaZskDX3ETN076GTbH5Q=&h=480&w=371&sz=36&hl=en&start=137&zoom=1&tbnid=m1PlaDz6FMpXCM:&tbnh=155&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclothespin%2Bon%2Bnose%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1R2GGLL_enUS334%26biw%3D1419%26bih%3D619%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C2853&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=128&vpy=258&dur=16&hovh=255&hovw=197&tx=99&ty=113&ei=eN4rTbK0F4SBlAeBwvzCCw&oei=VN4rTcnCOYWclgeu59GrCQ&esq=8&page=7&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:137&biw=1419&bih=619

[Anonymous]

As far as smell being related to ideology. It is my observation that radicals and true-believers on both sides of the political spectrum tend to be more likely to smell terrible. This is most likely because they are so concerned about their wacky ideology (global warming, environmentalism, militia development, income redistribution, etc...so-forth and so-on) that they have little concern for keeping themselves clean. Since Obama was graded one of the most left wing senators and is so passionate about nonsense like income redistribution, (not to mention, he befriends lunatics like Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright) this would be a distinct possibility about the source of his nasty bacterial build-up. This is one of the reasons smell discourage people from choosing an odiferous gentleman as their leader.

[Anonymous]

it is all clear to me now. the ft hood shooting was nothing to do with Islam and this Tuscon shooter was because of Sarah Palin. Got it.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of noise just because a politician got hurt. Just like Dick Cheneys gun incident.

If the person had been a SAHM or a welfare mom, then would anybody care?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

[Anonymous]

Free speech is a dangerous phenomenon. Gun rights are a dangerous phenomenon. Capitalism is a dangerous phenomenon. Christianity is a dangerous phenomenon. Free will is a dangerous and risky existance. Living in America is dangerous, risky, thrilling, exciting, not for losers, otherwise we wouldn't have left boring and loser inhabited Europe to be here. After the tough people make a place awesome to live in, the losers always start moving in and try to change it into the soft squishy European style socialist loserville they were bored with before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of noise just because a politician got hurt. Just like Dick Cheneys gun incident.

If the person had been a SAHM or a welfare mom, then would anybody care?

When a gunman fires on a crowd of people, it ALWAYS makes national news. I'm sure we would care in this particular situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Free speech is a dangerous phenomenon. Gun rights are a dangerous phenomenon. Capitalism is a dangerous phenomenon. Christianity is a dangerous phenomenon. Free will is a dangerous and risky existance. Living in America is dangerous, risky, thrilling, exciting, not for losers, otherwise we wouldn't have left boring and loser inhabited Europe to be here. After the tough people make a place awesome to live in, the losers always start moving in and try to change it into the soft squishy European style socialist loserville they were bored with before.

This does not belong on this topic. You must be desperate for attention. Why don't you create a MySpace page or something?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Free speech is a dangerous phenomenon. Gun rights are a dangerous phenomenon. Capitalism is a dangerous phenomenon. Christianity is a dangerous phenomenon. Free will is a dangerous and risky existance. Living in America is dangerous, risky, thrilling, exciting, not for losers, otherwise we wouldn't have left boring and loser inhabited Europe to be here. After the tough people make a place awesome to live in, the losers always start moving in and try to change it into the soft squishy European style socialist loserville they were bored with before.

I'm stunned nearly speechless that you were able to string together that many sentences without using a "...." or mentioning body oder. There may be hope for you after all.