Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

MattusMaximus said:
No.
Click to expand...
Okay, see how that works? Do you get it now? No one can tell others what to talk about. That includes you. Especially you.

Do you go also go into churches during services and shout at everyone not to believe in God? If you don't, then why are you doing the equivalent of that here?
 
Dorian Gray said:
Same as above. If you don't like what's happening in this thread, leave. If you think this thread is like CT, and you don't frequent the CT forums..... isn't it obvious that you should do the same in this case?
Click to expand...

In response to your charge of hypocrisy, I think it is quite hypocritical of you to make these statements. Perhaps if you don't like what I and others are saying here, you should be the one to leave.
 
ANTPogo said:
The more you try to stretch this, more obvious the false equivalency you're trying to draw becomes.
Click to expand...

The Right does it.

The Left calls them on it.

The Left does the SAME thing.

The Right calls them on it...and gets attacked by the Left as trying to draw a false equivalency.

*facepalm*
 
Dorian Gray said:
Okay, see how that works? Do you get it now? No one can tell others what to talk about. That includes you. Especially you.

Do you go also go into churches during services and shout at everyone not to believe in God? If you don't, then why are you doing the equivalent of that here?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the posts where I told people they are free to say whatever they want, and I am free to criticize them for it.

If you don't like what I'm saying, then perhaps you should leave :rolleyes:
 
PixyMisa said:
You mean, like on a map?
Click to expand...

I don't actually think that the SarahPAC poster really called for the targeting of congressmen and women for anything other than a political challenge. Nevertheless, the verbiage, tone, and symbology used is not the same as the verbiage, tone, and symbology used on the DailyKOS.

What the DailyKOS did wasn't any better (despite your attempt to make a sort of tu quoque argument using it), but it wasn't the same.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I agree with MattusMaximus. It is rather interesting to see who was posting what in this thread, in that it wasn't surprising at all.

Saying that a youtube clip sounds crazy is different than saying that the guy could be a tea partier likely pushed by Palin. No amount of the semantic quibbling going on here to justify people's weird fantasies will change that. If you want a particular outcome here, it says more about you than about the situation.
Click to expand...
Nope. They're the same. Speculation without facts is speculation without facts, whether it's political or psychological. No amount of wishing otherwise will change that. No amount of screeching will prevent people from speculating on the cause.
 
johnny karate said:
The word "target" has many meanings, most of which have nothing to do with guns.

Crosshairs, however, are most commonly associated with guns.
Click to expand...

Bombsights? Bows/arrows. And there is a machinist's lens called a 'bombsight'. Microscopes, of various kinds? Telescopes?

I'm actually surprised that, happening in AZ, he didn't get blown to bits by the armed citizens. Probably would have happened in a GOP crowd, after maybe just a couple shots?
 
Last edited:
deepatrax said:
The Right does it.

The Left calls them on it.

The Left does the SAME thing.

The Right calls them on it...and gets attacked by the Left as trying to draw a false equivalency.

*facepalm*
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to PixyMisa, your tu quoque argument breaks down on step 3 there.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Nope. They're the same. Speculation without facts is speculation without facts, whether it's political or psychological. No amount of wishing otherwise will change that. No amount of screeching will prevent people from speculating on the cause.
Click to expand...

If you don't like what Tsukasa Buddha and others are saying, then perhaps you should leave or shaddap :rolleyes:
 
deepatrax said:
The Lefty's here actually believe that the crosshair on Palin's map was targeting the exact Latitude and Longitude of Rep. Gifford's home...
Click to expand...

Uh, no. HER NAME was on that list. THAT'S how I know she was the "target."

MY rep's name is also on that list. That target is over my city. I don't like it.
Nothing you say can make me approve of it, condone it or accept it, because I have given it thought and I have decided I do not like that sort of metaphor. I can't imagine what "argument" would get me to take it as acceptable.

If it were a map of Catholic priests who have been proven to have molested children, I still wouldn't like it.

If it were a map targeting known pedophiles, rapists, murderers, or any other criminals, I would not like it.

Targets don't belong on anything but target papers at a firing range or an archery range, or another place where people use a weapon against an inanimate target for practice.

They don't belong on people, on places where people live, and they certainly don't need to have names included to make sure we understand just who the target is.
 
deepatrax said:
The Lefty's here actually believe that the crosshair on Palin's map was targeting the exact Latitude and Longitude of Rep. Gifford's home...
Click to expand...

No, what is being argued is that Palin's map used gun-related imagery to target individuals, while the other map used dart/chain retail store imagery to target districts. There's a significant difference. One has an implicit threat of violence towards someone, the other doesn't.

Look, I'm not on the "Blame Palin" bandwagon, but I've always found that map offensive. I'm glad it's down now, and I hope it stays down.
 
MattusMaximus said:
You seem to have missed the posts where I told people they are free to say whatever they want, and I am free to criticize them for it.

If you don't like what I'm saying, then perhaps you should leave :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There's a difference, dude. Other people are trying to have a discussion. You are trying to prevent a discussion.

In a FORUM. Think about that. It sounds crazy, doesn't it?
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's starting to look like this guy is an anarchist. This is pure speculation based on what has come out on the news.
Click to expand...

Looks like it might be that way (although there several different types of anarchists, of course). As I wrote earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if he held an Alex Jones type paleoconservatism, which, interpreted through that lens, appears to be more like survivalism. To me, he just seems like a confused young man, and I'd bet he follows some misinterpreted philosophy, as is common when trying to find yourself. Unfortunately the idiot had to kill and maim several people because he couldn't find the appropriate outlet to deal with his confusion. Idle speculation, obviously, but I doubt it's too far off.
 
casebro said:
Bombsights? Bows/arrows. And there is a machinist's lens called a 'bombsight'. Microscopes, of various kinds? Telescopes?
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt Palin's intention - nor the gut reaction of anyone who saw it - was to associate the crosshairs on her map with a machinist's lens or telescope.
 
Dorian Gray said:
There's a difference, dude. Other people are trying to have a discussion. You are trying to prevent a discussion.

In a FORUM. Think about that. It sounds crazy, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Since you're trying to shut down any discussion I want to have here, it's clear that you cannot handle it. So you should remain silent or leave.

Who's being the hypocrite now, Mr. "Hypocrisy Detector"? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom