Just as every bad action of Bush was nots because Clinton got a blow-job, bad actions on one side do not excuse bad actions on the other. Saying that it is ok for Palin to use gun rhetoric and targets simply because the other side did begs the question, which is: Does rhetoric with the potential to inflame an already disturbed mind have any place in our political discourse.
There are a lot of politicians on both sides that I abhor. But I don't wish them dead, I just wish them ignored. On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "First of all, not only "liberals" are saying this. If the map was that > innocent, why did Palin's staff remove it so quickly?" > > Great question. Same reason the daily kos removed their bullseye map I > guess. Damage control > > "In addition to the map, Palin used consistent gun metaphors and imagery; > Lock and load, don't retreat, reload, etc. To do that, then claim your > gunsights aren't gunsights is just plain lying." > > No, it's disingenuous. Technically, they are surveying symbols. Probably a > matter of luck that they chose those. Still, there are numerous times I > have seen those on the other side of the aisle use such gimmicks to skirt > issues and cover their asses. Doesn't make it right, but it's SOP in > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333157 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
