RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence

So what you're saying is that targeting someone (metaphorically) in another party is okay as long as the reader thinks "crossbow," "missile" or anything but gun?

No that wouldn't be ok either.

Then we are back to the fact that the Democrats previously used targets on the opposition in pretty much the same way that Palin did. The only difference, by your own argument, is that one used a target that made you think "gun" and the others used targets that implied (at least to you) other weapons.

So then you must agree that the Democrat party was also wrong (or, in the alternative, that both were engaged in harmless political metaphor), correct?

No Palin used crosshairs while working the gun imagery.

You just wrote that the gun part of it is largely irrelevant:



You just wrote that targeting a political opponent with something other than a gun is also wrong.

Therefore, the fact that Palin used "gun imagery," by your own admission is no worse than the DNC using other forms of targeting imagery.

Nope. You can mistate all you want but I never said the gun part was irrelevant. Palin can talk about reloading and use her crosshairs all she wants too. I just think it's very poor leadership on her part.

I cut and pasted my question--and your response--verbatim (assuming you haven't gone back and edited it). We can all read what you wrote. I misstated nothing.

I never said the gun imagery was irrelevant.

You said targeting was wrong regardless of the weapon the metaphor brought to mind.

That does not make the gun imagery "irrelevant".

This is our exchange:




Are you now saying that targeting someone in another party IS okay as long the reader thinks of a different weapon?

G-man if a dem leader gets assasinated sometime soon, do you really think Palin will continue to use crosshairs and talk about reloading?

Then we are back to my point from yesterday.

It is a matter of record, and I've posted examples to demonstrate, that the images used by the DNC were, like the Palin "crosshairs," forms of targets. I've demonstrated, and you've failed to rebut, that both the DNC targets and the Palin crosshairs are used in shooting practice.

Shooting. As in guns.

If your argument is that gun imagery is wrong, then you need to either: (a) condemn the Democrats too; (b) admit that both sides were speaking in harmless metaphor. Otherwise, you are being a hypocrite.

Answer the question G-man.

You still haven't answered my question from yesterday and now you're demanding I answer one of yours?



But, sure. I'll answer your hypothetical just as soon as you answer mine:

if a GOP leader had been assasinated in 2004 or 2009, do you really think the DNC would have continued to use targets and written about 'targeted republicans' on their websites?

I think there would have been greater sensitivity by dems but they were not using crosshairs or had militias with plans to kill cops so it wouldn't have been much to change.

Doc if you would care to tackle the question I posed to G-man feel free.

Why, when all you've done is dodged and double talked out of everyone else's questions? My post, though made sarcastically, still blows holes in your 'crosshairs are worse than targets' argument. How was Palin's use of the image and her rhetoric any worse than that of the Dem Party that G-man pointed out of "Behind Enemy Lines" or of "Targeted Republicans"?

Can't answer it? Not surprised.

You want answers without having the balls to provide them yourself?

Alright, I think that if a Dem politician would have been killed after Palin's speech, she would have stopped her rhetoric just as fast as the Dems would have stopped theirs if a Rep politician had been killed. In other words, right-a-fucking-way. Because that's what politicians do.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
7500+ posts 47 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence

Can't wait for the spin on this one.

It's just sad that you're now down to this type of post. Rex already has that job. I do give you credit for at least answering a question though.

Couldn't even think of a good spin, huh?


It amazes me that you're not capable of seeing how silly the whole argument of 'crosshairs are worse than targets' is. They are equal rhetoric, whether good or bad. You just can't bring yourself to saying that the Dems and Reps are level with this kind of thing whether you approve of the style of rhetoric or not. That's what's really sad here.

The target stuff gets used by both parties though but not the crosshairs. Any theory as to why if as you say they are "equal"?

Are you sure that a Dem has never used the term 'crosshairs' in any speech what-so-ever? I'm pretty sure that it's a common used phrase.

Two days ago I provided examples and citations to show they were equal, insofar as: (a) cross-hairs are a form of target; (b) targets, and not just cross-hairs, are used in shooting practice.





You have refused/failed, despite multiple opportunities to do so, to give a single reason why they're different. You just keep repeating your opinion that they are.

He's waiting for a reply to his email from the Daily Kos before he can answer that.

Now you've done it. He's going to compare you to rex again.

I guess if MEM wants to have the Reps lay claim to the extremist militia; then, under the same 'rules' of politics, the Dems would have to lay claim to movements like ALF and ELF.

targets are what you shoot at. crosshairs are what you use to aim at your target.

No, we already dealt with that:

MEM, srsly, just admit that the Dems are being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is nothing new in politics. It'll be okay.

I know, but I couldn't resist.

You're being needlessly cruel to MEM. Stop it. He's already down. No need to pile on wounded prey.

can't help it. . .it's all the blood in the water. . .

Isn't that a Deep Purple song?

I'm sure they've used the word but not in a graphic like Palin did.

I'm sure you are a retard.