|
|
Palin crosshairs ad
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
What do you think? Encouraging violence? An abuse of the second amendment? Non-issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Meh, I don't think this one is a big deal.
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm no Palin fan, but this is a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Meh, it's been done before.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think I'd be more irritated by it if everything else she put out there wasn't a joke.
It's irresponsible, for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I won't say that it's crossed the line because things like this are somewhat common in political ads and whatnot. But given the heightened political tensions lately with the threats and violence it certainly is imprudent and irresponsible to put something like that out there now.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status:
Offline
|
|
What did she do. I missed it...
|
My sig is 1 pixel too big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
On the Facebook page for her PAC she posted this the day after Healthcare Reform was passed ...
Then she tweets the page with the following
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin
Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.
A lot of people think it was highly inflammatory in the midst of the recent political violence and threats. Others think that she didn't mean anything by it, and perhaps she's just too much of an "aww shucks" kind of person for it to even occur to her that some loose cannon among her followers might take that as an encouragement for violence. Still others think it's much ado about nothing.
What say you?
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
All that's missing from the ad is a silhouette of an AK-47.
Um.. I meant AR-15, a favorite of domestic terrorists.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh, why dirty up the US map with a map of Alaska? Or is that Alaska?
Looks like a bird poop on the US.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
This isn't quite as blatant as a movie depicting an assassination or a bullet in a Congressman's office window. I hope it doesn't get to the point where these folks need the type of security Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. have grown accustomed to.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can you rephrase this to make your point more directly?
As it stands, it sounds like you're telling everyone here to shut up. Is that your intention?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: petting the refrigerator.
Status:
Offline
|
|
If I were a senator and I saw a national add promoting people to take a stand with crosshairs over my name, I'd find it unsettling to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Can you rephrase this to make your point more directly?
As it stands, it sounds like you're telling everyone here to shut up. Is that your intention?
I wouldn't think for a minute that I would get anywhere suggesting people shut up nor would I want to silence anyone. I'm merely offering another perspective.
Was there something more specific in my post that said "shut up" to you?
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status:
Offline
|
|
Meh.
Not the best choice, but come on. This is just getting upset for the sake of getting upset.
|
My sig is 1 pixel too big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Was there something more specific in my post that said "shut up" to you?
Yes.
The topic is a specific use of violent rhetoric from someone on the right towards the left.
Your response was to compare this to far more egregious examples of violent rhetoric (or worse) from someone on the left towards the right.
This leads me to believe you think the topic has little value.
Ergo, zip it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Yes.
The topic is a specific use of violent rhetoric from someone on the right towards the left.
Actually, the OP is asking the forum if the rhetoric is violent. Most people seem to be saying "no". After all, they're called "battleground" states. Sarah Palin's schtick is the whole "female hunter" thing. She's merely tying her shtick to her political activism. This isn't a call to use violence against any Congressman in a battleground state any more than the term battleground state is a call for civil war.
We often use precedent to measure populace thought on a matter. In light of the question; "what do you think of this?" for example, we may ask; "well what did we think of these other things?" IMO, there are far worse examples of being irresponsible such as producing a movie that depict the assassination of a sitting President or firing bullets around the offices of representatives. I'm citing a bit of curiosity as to when we've picked up this peculiar degree of concern.
If another perspective says "shut up" to you, perhaps you're too dug in? I mean, this is what we do here right? Offer arguments, perspectives, etc...
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Actually, the OP is asking the forum if the rhetoric is violent. Most people seem to be saying "no". After all, they're called "battleground" states. Sarah Palin's schtick is the whole "female hunter" thing. She's merely tying her shtick to her political activism. This isn't a call to use violence against any Congressman in a battleground state any more than the term battleground state is a call for civil war.
We often use precedent to measure populace thought on a matter. In light of the question; "what do you think of this?" for example, we may ask; "well what did we think of these other things?" IMO, there are far worse examples of being irresponsible such as producing a movie that depict the assassination of a sitting President or firing bullets around the offices of representatives. I'm citing a bit of curiosity as to when we've picked up this peculiar degree of concern.
If another perspective says "shut up" to you, perhaps you're too dug in? I mean, this is what we do here right? Offer arguments, perspectives, etc...
Sure let's put things in perspective. What would Democrats say to a proportionate response against the Obama Care power grab? Say on the level of the the 2008 GOP Convention?
Outside the GOP convention, protests, violence and arrests | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Not to mention bricks and bags of cement thrown from overpasses on to buses and cars.
Friends of the RNC 8 — RNC 8 Defense Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Sarah Palin's schtick is the whole "female hunter" thing. She's merely tying her shtick to her political activism.
I agree. But, I wouldn't put it past some nut-job to interpret the ad as a call-to-arms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
I agree. But, I wouldn't put it past some nut-job to interpret the ad as a call-to-arms.
You're not really concerned about this are you? Seriously?
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You're not really concerned about this are you? Seriously?
Oh, I'm not saying I think it's likely or that Palin should have taken a different strategy for the campaign. I'm just saying there are a lot of nutjobs out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
The argument is that the imagery can be interpreted as violent, and that there are historical examples of violent imagery causing more violence and/or people being arrested for this violent imagery (William White, for example).
I personally don't understand how or why these sorts of images perpetuate this sort of stuff, but given this *highly* calculated and highly guarded political environment where politicians choose every single word carefully to a point of nausea and phonyness, the crosshairs are highly suspect.
Then again, I'm not going to rant and rave about this, I was just wondering whether others here might.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
I often hear how overblown the concern for terrorism is and then I see a thread like this. It made me wonder if this ad would've even come into question had it been from someone else or another political affiliation.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
It depends on how you define terrorism, doesn't it?
There are those that thought that the measures we took to prevent another 9/11 - i.e. foreign terrorism prevention via wiretapping et all were overblown, and there are those that might say that the measures we take with airport security are overblown, but I don't think anybody will deny the possibility of a foreign or domestic terror attack, it's just a matter of resource allocation and taking measures that are not expensive and/or relatively pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
It depends on how you define terrorism, doesn't it?
Unfortunately I think it has more to do with who defines terrorism.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Unfortunately I think it has more to do with who defines terrorism.
Why are you being defensive and partisan? I'm not going after Republicans here, nor am I really laying into Palin, why this?
For somebody who is willing to make the occasional concession here and there about the weaknesses of the Republican party/strategy/viewpoint/whatever, you sure seem more invested in your horse than one would expect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Why are you being defensive and partisan? I'm not going after Republicans here, nor am I really laying into Palin, why this?
Why is it defensive and partisan to challenge your query? How do I say this besson... there is a certain circle in which this question, of this ad would actually occur. Does that make sense? You understand this is not something a moderate, centre-right, or right mentality would be concerned about, but it is decidedly something you would ask.
For somebody who is willing to make the occasional concession here and there about the weaknesses of the Republican party/strategy/viewpoint/whatever, you sure seem more invested in your horse than one would expect.
Because I gave you an illustration of how silly the question over Palin's ad is? It was a perspective besson. I mean, you've got folks from all walks of political persuasion essentially telling you it's a non-issue. But... to you it is. I mean either you disingenuously posted the question as an opinion or you're genuinely curious if this is an "encouragement of violence" or an abuse of the second amendment. What does that mean anyway; "an abuse of the second amendment"? Is there an amendment against the abuse of an amendment? Wagging your gun in the air? I think that's illegal.
Anyway... the very question itself, over whether or not Palin's ad is an encouragement of violence or "an abuse of the second amendment" is decidedly partisan because otherwise it's what most here are saying it is; a non-issue.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Where did I say it was in issue? Whatever, ebuddy. It's clear you are getting emotional about this, so let's leave things here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Where did I say it was in issue?
If you thought it was so trivial what was the point of starting a thread about it?
|
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
If you thought it was so trivial what was the point of starting a thread about it?
To see what others thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Actually, the OP is asking the forum if the rhetoric is violent. Most people seem to be saying "no". After all, they're called "battleground" states. Sarah Palin's schtick is the whole "female hunter" thing. She's merely tying her shtick to her political activism. This isn't a call to use violence against any Congressman in a battleground state any more than the term battleground state is a call for civil war.
I took the OP to have been asking if it encourages violence, since that's the question he put in there. As to whether the rhetoric actually is violent, I didn't even consider it debatable until this post. Crosshairs are from scopes, which go on guns, the kind you oft times "RELOAD". Guns are for killing things, like the things one would hunt for example. Hunting is violent.
In a similar vein, I can't see how it's debatable the term "battleground" is violent. It's the place where they had a battle. Blood is spilt. Lives are lost. Battles are violent. Of course, "battleground" has a commonly accepted figurative meaning in the context of politics, not to mention the English language in general, and as such usually makes for a poor rhetorical device. I'm not sure it's the best point of comparison.
Just to be clear, I am not, nor do I think anyone who is rational, is claiming Palin is making a call to use violence.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
We often use precedent to measure populace thought on a matter. In light of the question; "what do you think of this?" for example, we may ask; "well what did we think of these other things?" IMO, there are far worse examples of being irresponsible such as producing a movie that depict the assassination of a sitting President or firing bullets around the offices of representatives. I'm citing a bit of curiosity as to when we've picked up this peculiar degree of concern.
I've had the benefit of reading further posts, so it appears the key issue here you want to highlight is hypocrisy. I'm not going to argue the gist of what you've been saying, I agree with you. However, your (well taken) point is essentially separate from whether the ad itself has issues in an objective sense. This is true even in a worst case scenario where the person presenting the accusation is a hypocrite.
The issue I have personally, is that by using the rhetoric, Palin has gone a long way towards making that level of discourse acceptable. Apart from the fact I find it weak and lazy from an intellectual standpoint, to me, the notion of a non-peaceful resolution to our government issues (even figuratively stated) is pretty loathsome. It's un-American.
As to whether it will encourage violence, it's almost certainly not going to precipitate something in and of itself, but I don't exactly see it helping. It will encourage the level of discourse even lower, which won't help either.
Of course, there's no question the filmmakers have lowered the level of discourse as well, and not just with some figurative rhetoric. The film is undeniably of a wholly different magnitude when compared to Palin's ad.
So, on one hand we have something irresponsible, and on the other we have something condemnable. That being said, I'm going to have differing expectations of responsibility for the former Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States, and some goons in a foreign country making an exploitation movie. Likewise with regards to their level of control over the tone of the national dialogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I took the OP to have been asking if it encourages violence, since that's the question he put in there. As to whether the rhetoric actually is violent, I didn't even consider it debatable until this post. Crosshairs are from scopes, which go on guns, the kind you oft times "RELOAD". Guns are for killing things, like the things one would hunt for example. Hunting is violent.
Right and "RELOAD" suggests you've already emptied the gun. Who or what has died from the initial firing of the weapon?
I think it's a call for resolve to vote out Democrats in key battleground states. IMO it's patently apparent to anyone paying even a modicum of attention to political rhetoric. The term "crosshairs" is an age-old euphemism for "in your focus" and is actually quite common in political discourse. Google Democrats crosshairs for example and you'll find a wealth of reports such as "Texas board of education in Democrats crosshairs" or "GOP Senator in Democrats crosshairs", and "Ohio crossover voters in Democrats crosshairs", etc... (I only recommended googling "Democrats crosshairs" because if you did Republican crosshairs it'd probably just be Palin)
I think this only comes into play as an "issue" or even a "potential issue" in very specific circles. That was the crux of my point. I think it plays into the fear-mongering over the Tea Party folks if you want to cut right through it.
So, on one hand we have something irresponsible, and on the other we have something condemnable. That being said, I'm going to have differing expectations of responsibility for the former Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States, and some goons in a foreign country making an exploitation movie. Likewise with regards to their level of control over the tone of the national dialogue.
I think you're right to place them in two different levels of expectation and the good news is I don't think most would even give the Palin ad a second glance.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
I personally don't understand how or why these sorts of images perpetuate this sort of stuff, but given this *highly* calculated and highly guarded political environment where politicians choose every single word carefully to a point of nausea and phonyness, the crosshairs are highly suspect.
You massively over estimate the ability of politicians to be "*highly* calculated" - just look at how many have been caught having affairs...
And it's more then just affairs. Many say stupid stuff all the time. For example, Biden is known for saying stupid stuff yet he's the VPOTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
If Obama did something like this, it would have been called fascist nazism, the complete annihilation of american liberty.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
A graphic design decision. Wink wink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Right and "RELOAD" suggests you've already emptied the gun. Who or what has died from the initial firing of the weapon?
Nobody. They missed everyone during the last battle. It was pretty embarrassing since they had guns and all the Democrats had were unicorn cavalry and rainbow berms.
Note these were figurative unicorns, just like the figurative guns.
To put it another way, I thought I made it explicit in the last post I understand Palin did not intend to be taken literally, and no one rational is taking her so.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The term "crosshairs" is an age-old euphemism for "in your focus" and is actually quite common in political discourse.
Again, it isn't used in this context as a rhetorical device, and there's a reason for that. It's not like Palin was the first person to think of the idea of using it as such, it's that people who think of the idea usually reject it.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I think this only comes into play as an "issue" or even a "potential issue" in very specific circles. That was the crux of my point. I think it plays into the fear-mongering over the Tea Party folks if you want to cut right through it.
As I said upthread, to me it rates an "irresponsible". I'm not sure where that fits on the potential issue-issue axis.
I can't disagree with the notion this issue would be attractive to someone who was interested in bashing the Tea Party.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I think you're right to place them in two different levels of expectation and the good news is I don't think most would even give the Palin ad a second glance.
I think whether this can be considered good news is dependent upon if she continues this line of rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
A graphic design decision. Wink wink.
It's Sarah Palin, so just one "wink" and a "you betcha".
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|