On Jan 18, 11:57 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > Studio, > > > Then shouldn't he be telling Palin NOT to take the target list off her > > Web site? > > If Palin had asked me I would most definitely have advised her there > was no need to pull the map. There was nothing wrong with it. If you, > like the rest of the Democratic party, believed a map with bulls-eyes > on it was appropriate then it's impossible for you to make a logical > argument against a map with cross-hairs on it. Cross-hairs, bulls- > eyes.. there is no difference.
And you don't think there were people advising her not to take it off? Ultimately it's up to her to decide, and she decided the right thing because it's obvious to everyone except a few tards she felt guilty about it. > I'm still waiting for an explanation of how I made Giffords the > victim. > I would have no problem telling Congresswoman Giffords that she was wrong to complain about what Palin did while ignoring what her own party did, and that's the point. 1st, Giffords isn't the head of the party. 2nd, she was Targeted and not the party. 3rd, it wasn't wrong of her to complain about being targeted. 4th, you have no point, you have excuses. > If you want to argue that tactic is improper, fine, but be consistent. What's looney is to argue a political map with cross-hairs on it could be the motive for an assassination attempt, but a map with bulls-eyes on it is perfectly fine.< No one is arguing that besides you trying to spin it that way. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
