Writerbuckeye;630486 wrote:Seriously, you missed the point THAT bad?

No, I changed the channel because some "journalist" was LEAPING TO CONCLUSIONS that a tragic incident was linked to partisanship and people getting passionate about their views. There was absolutely NO evidence that this tragedy resulted from partisanship. None. Zero. Zip.

It was like being in a church where the preacher is telling you how awful you've been when, in fact, you haven't done a damn thing wrong.

Using this incident to try and quell the passions of people fighting (not literally) for what they believe in only results in one thing: it lets the REAL bad guys (the unstable ones) win.

It's another PC approach to solving a problem and, like most PC problem solving, it's absolutely the wrong way to go.

Apparently, great minds think alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41071

Writerbuckeye;630952 wrote:Apparently, great minds think alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41071

Haha, yeah. I largely agree. But, would note, liberals aren't the only ones who do it either. Some right wingers jump to conclusions sometimes too.

Still, yesterday and still today, I urged caution against labeling this wacko.
Since he isn't talking, we may not know his exact motives for a little while. Until then, we can only guess, and that leads to both crazies pointing at each other.

Writerbuckeye;630952 wrote:Apparently, great minds think alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41071

You can’t put a paranoid lunatic like Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, anywhere on the Left or Right of our political spectrum. This was equally true of Clay Duke, the Panama City school board shooter, who was marinated in a thick stew of socialist literature, class envy, and hard-Left websites. It was true of Joseph Stack, the man who flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, leaving behind an anti-capitalist manifesto that approvingly cited the “communist creed.” It was true of James Lee, the environmental extremist who used bombs to take hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters last September

Exactly

ptown_trojans_1;630958 wrote:Haha, yeah. I largely agree. But, would note, liberals aren't the only ones who do it either. Some right wingers jump to conclusions sometimes too.

Still, yesterday and still today, I urged caution against labeling this wacko.
Since he isn't talking, we may not know his exact motives for a little while. Until then, we can only guess, and that leads to both crazies pointing at each other.

They (liberals) may not be the only ones, but it seems of late, they are the quickest to jump to conclusions.

Why isn't he being called a terrorist by anyone?

Fits the description and I bet if the dude were from the Middle East he'd be labled as such.

Though I guess I wouldn't exactly lable him a terrorist either becuase it seems his goals centered around killing the Congresswoman and while that is politically motivated and could fit the Oxford definition of terrorism I do not think his goal was (at least with what I know right now) to inspire fear or chaos which is a pretty defining part of terrorism in my view. Though I'm second guessing my skepticism of his wanting to induce fear because if he only wanted to kill the Congresswoman he wouldn't have opened fire on 20 other people only stopping when another clip of ammo failed to fire in his gun. If his gun doesn't malfunction who knows how many more are injured or killed.

I guess I just find it odd that I haven't heard one single pundit utter the word.

I Wear Pants;631581 wrote:Why isn't he being called a terrorist by anyone?

Fits the description and I bet if the dude were from the Middle East he'd be labled as such.

Though I guess I wouldn't exactly lable him a terrorist either becuase it seems his goals centered around killing the Congresswoman and while that is politically motivated and could fit the Oxford definition of terrorism I do not think his goal was (at least with what I know right now) to inspire fear or chaos which is a pretty defining part of terrorism in my view.

I guess I just find it odd that I haven't heard one single pundit utter the word.

Don't you know that not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim?

I Wear Pants;631581 wrote:Why isn't he being called a terrorist by anyone?

Maybe people were waiting on you to ask. Maybe people think you want them to say it, and are not doing it just to piss you off.

Who is and who isn't terrorists has been discussed many times. I think the general consensus (basically) is that terrorism rests on a political or religious agenda. Did this guy have a political or religious agenda, or is he just twisted - as in mentally deranged? Does that also mean that any other terrorist(s) is also mentally deranged?
Did this guy hope to affect some sort of change?

Say this kid is instead a Muslim man and instead of shooting the people with Glock uses a bomb to inflict the same injuries and the same amount of carnage. This man also has the same sort of crazy online persona as the real shooter. Are you telling me that the word terrorist doesn't get thrown around like swear words in the Navy?

This person clearly had a political agenda in that he targeted a Congresswoman for a killing. That is one part of what I consider terrorism and that part alone fulfills the Oxford definition of terrorism. However I don't think the Oxford definition is sufficient as I believe as I think most do that terrorism's goal is to inspire fear and chaos in others. I'm less sure that the current incident satisfies that part of what makes something terrorism (in my eyes).

I'm not only talking about Conservative or right-wing media either, I think that the media in general has really hesitated to even question whether this is terrorism in part because it was an American born white person who committed the deed instead of some easily placed minority.

fish82;630683 wrote:Sarah Palin's Map




Democratic Leadership Committee (2004):




Oops.

I'd say from my personal viewpoint that both Palin and the Democrat(s) who made that particular 2004 ad should be roundly condemned. Palin for the now and the Dems for setting the precedent that stuff like that is acceptable.

Over the past number of years, it seems like school shootings, disgruntled employee/former employee shooting, etc. are in the headlines on a very regular basis. To me, using bulleyes/hunting references in this manner is stupid and irresponsible, as it's just too easy to imagine nutcases taking it literally.

I thank you for posting the Dem version of that map. I didn't know about Palin's deal until it was publicized after the shooting and I didn't know about the Dem's deal until I saw it here. I was planning to condemn Palin's deal for being irresponsible, so it's good to have the full story and know the other side has been just as irresponsible. Like most things in national politics, there's stupidity all around the place.

^^^^ +1

I didn't know about either until people started freaking out. But both are distasteful and should have been thought better of.

Although the Democrat one uses what looks like an archery target. I doubt someone gets off 19 shots with a bow.

I Wear Pants;631706 wrote:Although the Democrat one uses what looks like an archery target. I doubt someone gets off 19 shots with a bow.

I bet Beowulf could do it!

I just realized how fitting it is that the Democrat target ad used archery targets instead of gun crosshairs. It aligns well with their anti-gun stance.

I Wear Pants;631720 wrote:I just realized how fitting it is that the Democrat target ad used archery targets instead of gun crosshairs. It aligns well with their anti-gun stance.

Good point!

It also aligns well with their love everybody, communual living, everyday is <3 Day - Cupid kinda stuff.

CenterBHSFan;631717 wrote:I bet Beowulf could do it!

I do have to give you about +1,000,000,000,000,000 for this one (which is a lot of "illions"). Back in good old fictional swords-n-sorcery times, people were simply more bad-ass and effective than today. Look at Conan. He and a couple sidekicks stormed the fortress of a crazy cultist barbarian warlord, slew him, his inner circle and his monster snake thing and saved the day without any fancy guns or shit. Today, Harry Potter needs a million friends and magic to do the same thing. That's the ruination of this world. People suck now compared to then!

To me, using bulleyes/hunting references in this manner is stupid and irresponsible, as it's just too easy to imagine nutcases taking it literally.

Is there proof that this nutjob looked at or knew about these target maps?It doesn't really natter.

I think it is silly to try to rationalize irrational behavior by pointing to these maps or the heated rhetoric that exists today. IMO, people who choose to act irrationally will find something or anything to justify their actions, no matter how heinous those actions are.

Se let me get this clear. One nutbag commits a heinous crime. Now certain innocent political metaphorical expressions of speech are now politically incorrect and should be held in disdain. And now should be driven from the political lexicon. Target and bulls eye should now be off limits?

Get a grip people. Why would some of you allow the acts of one mentally deranged man such power? And just on mere speculation that those maps had could have influenced this nutbag. He may never have even seen them. And if he did so what? The dude is a nut. Why would we kowtow to a nutbag?

Statistically the chance that an individual would somehow construe these political metaphors as a call to violence is exponentially small. Obama himself on the campaign trail used the words, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” 99.99% of those that heard those words knew he was not advocating a call to violence. He was just using simple metaphors that we all use in our everyday speech to make a point. The context is clear with the maps as well as Obama's campaign rhetoric to the vast majority of Americans.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

I don't think he was trying to rationalize the behavior but just saying that at best those type of map things are bad PR work.

I don't think he was trying to rationalize the behavior but just saying that at best those type of map things are bad PR work.

First of all,I don't even see them as bad PR work.They are merely maps with areas of concern clearly marked.

Secondly, he wrote :

To me, using bulleyes/hunting references in this manner is stupid and irresponsible, as it's just too easy to imagine nutcases taking it literally.

That seems to me like he is saying this nutjob may have been influenced by the maps, so maps of this type should be out of bounds. Sorry, I find that silly.

I Wear Pants;631799 wrote:I don't think he was trying to rationalize the behavior but just saying that at best those type of map things are bad PR work.

I know he was not trying to rationalize the behavior. That was clear and he made his point. I made mine.

It is only considered bad PR work because of recent events. Those maps and Obama's words were made prior to these current events. So you really can't necessarily label them bad PR work. I doubt either party would put out such an add or Obama would utter such words in a campaign speech, had this event happened immediately prior to them.

Well it is easy to imagine nutcases taking it seriously.

That wasn't the case in this instance but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that did happen eventually. Not necessarily because of these maps or maps like them but because of all the talk of "the dems/reps are evil and trying to ruin your country/take your money/steal your freedoms" by some of the talking heads.

And even if that isn't the case and no one will ever be influenced to do a terrible deed because the people on the tv told them the other guys are ruining the world I think it'd be nice if we all chilled out with the apocalyptic hyperbole when speaking of people who don't share our political ideals.

Well it is easy to imagine nutcases taking it seriously.

The point is a nutjob will find something to justify his actions. Maybe, these maps were his rationalization. Maybe , he watched The Sopranos and decided to off somebody. Maybe, maybe, maybe.... We can't ban everything and we can't stop a deranged individual from acting on his impusles and bent on violence..

I found this little blurb on another message board.

How about responding to this which is part of an ad run by the St Petersburg Fla Democratic Club?

"And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad continues. "We should put this S.O.B. up against the wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/14/20040414-123947-2345r/

To blame this on anyone except the kook who did it is foolish.

This is true and these maps weren't his rationalization. I'm pretty positive of that. I don't think we should start banning the use of euphemisms in political speech or anything but i simply wish that we could stop seeing people who have different ideas or ideals than we do as our enemy.

Prescott;631808 wrote:First of all,I don't even see them as bad PR work.They are merely maps with areas of concern clearly marked.

Secondly, he wrote : That seems to me like he is saying this nutjob may have been influenced by the maps, so maps of this type should be out of bounds. Sorry, I find that silly.

Exactly. In business we put "targets" and "bulls eyes" on our competition and use such metaphors for illustrative effect.. It does not mean we are advocating literal violent action be brought against our competitors. Hence the terms "battle" or "war". They are used countless times in the context of business and sports. Any reasonable person can see the context of such terms and their applied meaning. Should they now be off limits because of a nutbag?

If a coach refers to a sporting event as a "battle" he should rethink his words because of the remote chance some nutbag may take his words literally and take a gun to the fight? Or a politician referring to a political "battle". How far do some of you want to use political pressure to limit the rights of individuals to use metaphorical speech to illustrate a point. Lets use common sense and grow a pair. Man up people and stand up for common sense. Lets not let the fringe nutbags dictate our political and private means of making a point in a reasonable fashion.

The notion that Palin political strategy maps that utilize targets/bulls eyes to illustrate and pinpoint the opposition and thereby encourages loner nutcases to make assassination attempts is absolutely absurd.

This fixation by the left on Palin is so over-the-top it's actually almost as scary as knowing there are deranged lunatics like Loughner in our midst.

Majorspark. I guess the difference in my thoughts is that I consider "making a point in a reasonable fashion" to be actually explaining why you're better suited to be in office than the other person, as opposed to a moronic "let's hunt down and conquer these guys because they have a different letter than D/R after their name". Those campaigns are just like the bullshit TV ads we all had to sit through this past year and many others...don't dream of saying what you bring to the table, just bash the opponent. To me "reasonable fashion" would be actually reasoning with people as to why you're the better choice, as opposed to hunting references and various smear campaigns that are better suited to Jerry Springer than the election booth.

When I think of standing up for common sense, I think of actually being on topic with things like reasons why you/your party should take charge...not some lame map with crosshairs or bulleyes on it with a "we should/could win this state for our party, so get out and make it happen!" message that does nothing to justify that decision other than having one letter or another in charge. There's nothing reasonable about that...unless being a hamster on a wheel for life is reasonable.

To mention another point in your last post, MS, I do remember a lot of discussion on the old Huddle about certain big games between private religious schools being known as "Holy Wars" after 9/11. It does seem that in times of turmoil, people do get uptight about certain things. Which explains airport gropings, profiling, Patriot Act stuff, etc.