Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Gabriella Giffords Assasinated...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Actually I was referring to the use of the word bulls eye, not a graphic - and the original post did use the word bulls eye. Which is why I didn't say anything about a graphic and used the term rhetoric. How is okay to use the word bulls eye but not use graphics? If you're going to argue its deplorable then all instances of this type of use should be deplorable - graphical or verbal.
And you can try to excuse the dead to me thread all you want but it was hateful and disgusting. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Your line of argument is increasingly absurd. A Kos article said that a vote put a bulls eye on some members' districts. Bulls eyes are merely the center of a target. As most of you right wingers have been arguing, there is nothing inherently violent about a target. Plus, the bulls eye was on districts, not members themselves. The exact phrase used by Kos was "bulls eye on their district". Compare that to Giffords' opponent holding a shooting event in which the targets were not bullseyes, but human-shapped targets. Or, compare to Sarah Palin who did not use targets, but rather crosshairs and tweeted her followers to "reload" when linking to the map. Palin was clearly using gun imagery. I know it's a tough concept to grasp, but words by themselves rarely carry significant meaning. Meaning comes from the words being used in context. As George Carlin said, you can prick your finger but not finger your prick. Not every use of the word "target" is violent. It's interesting to see the evolution of the right wing argument. First, it was "Sarah didn't use crosshairs, they were surveyors' symbols". Then, "it was a metaphor and it's absurd to think they referred to guns". Now, it's "Kos said bullls eye too". Or, even the more ridiculous idea that are article using the phrase "Dead to Me" was "hateful and disgusting". Obviously, you have never read that article and are in no position to render such judgement. But, the fact that an anonymous author who has roughly the same standing as any poster on this board is one of the only examples of left wing violent rhetoric that you can identify speaks volumes. Those who provide plentiful examples of right wing violent rhetoric are not anonymous, marginal players. They are the cherished leaders of the right. |
Anonymous
| that mght have been the dumbest thing I've read here yet. so targets and bullseyes are not ok, but sometimes they are ok? wow that is asinine. |
Anonymous
| The best thing about the new media, talk radio, Fox news, and the internet is that all the liberal tricks don't work anymore. This phenomenon is driving liberals crazy. The right wing nutcases are matching the left wing nutcases bloe for blow. To the typical american who is center right it is now all just background noise and they are no longer influenced by the left. They just vote center-right which is so far from where Obama and the true believers are. You are going to see a real liberal meltdown over the next election cycle. This stuff is fun to watch. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I am not surprised that the importance of context to the meaning of words is something beyond your ability to understand. Given the pride so many right wingers take in their ignorance, I assume you are quite thrilled by your inability to grasp this rather simple concept. |
Anonymous
It's nice that you acknowledge that Fox news and your talk radio is full of nutcases. They don't seem to realize it. |
Anonymous
|
targets and bullseyes and campaigns are military terminology. i'm ok with it.
Obama talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight is more violent imagergy, but i'm ok with that too because clearly he was speaking in metaphors (and probably quoting Untouchables?) the Dem congressman saying the Republican Gov of Florida should be shot against a wall? probably more over the top, but free speech is free speech. The NJ union leaders saying they wished the NJ Gov would die, violent imagery. distasteful, but whatever. but capitalizing on the death of a 9 year old girl to score political points? that is beyond the pale and I'm not ok with it. |
Anonymous
Don't worry. The vast majority are with you. This is just making people dislike liberals more than they already do. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
You must be referring to the Republican Congresswoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx who called Loughner "The liberal of the liberals" or the Republican movement leader Rush Limbaugh who said Loughner has the full support of the Democratic Party. I agree. Such statements are beyond the pale. And, I'll say it again. I don't think the Tucson attack was politically motivated. I have said that from the first minute. The only reason I've discussed the violent rhetoric emanating from so much of the right wing is because posters have attempted to deny that it exists. It exists and is worthy of condemnation even if it didn't trigger this attack. |
Anonymous
NO, let's clear up one thing. Liberals are not trying to score political points, no matter what you are hearing from the press. We have been worried about the hostility that has been coming out of right wing politics for years. It is mostly at the rank and file level, with the assaults on protestors, increased death threats, and some of the signs being carried. But we ARE worried, and it bothers us that the rhetoric chosen by the leadership, while not straight out advocating violence, feeds the hostility. We can disagree on the extent to which the climate created by the political right contributed to THIS situation. But we ARE worried. It has been a discussion since 2008. So stop pretending this is political point scoring and ask yourself whether some of this rhetoric is unhealthy for our country. |
Anonymous
From reading your post, I get the feeling that you have no concerns about any hostility or rhetoric coming from the liberal side? Is that correct? |
Anonymous
|
Sara Palin is magnificent. Watch her here, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47477.html, using Tucson to accuse those of us who oppose gun-oriented imagery. We are, she says, engaging in a blood libel to stifle debate.
Think about it; for us liberals to criticize one aspect of her speech is reason for her to criticize us as having libeled her, but her criticism of us is defense of liberty? Does she not see that she is doing exactly what she is criticizing others for? I called her magnificent because she is the first who has managed to use this situation to make a beautifully rehearsed campaign video for 2012. What magnificent effrontery! |
Anonymous
| Accountability has never been one of the right's strengths. Hypocrisy, now that is a defining characteristic. |
Anonymous
Like her or not, she looks and sounds great in front of a camera! |
Anonymous
Like I said, she is magnificent! |