If I told you that I had you in my cross-hairs, would you assume I was going to put you on a map, or send our my surveyor? Especially if I was constantly talking about loading my gun? Your argument regarding the difference is specious at best.
What you consistently miss is that I think they are all idiots, and both the bulls-eyes and the cross hairs are overblown nonsense. On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is you don't seem to care that the dems use bullseyes while > you're all upset about Palin's surveyor cross hairs. Both have nothing > to do with the shooting, but if you're going to moan about nothing, do > it in a non-partisan way. > > > . > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333161 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
