Rep Gabrielle Giffords Said of Sarah Palin's Crosshairs Ad 'There's Consequences to That Action' in Bickering and Arkansas Discussion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Rep Gabrielle Giffords Said of Sarah Palin's Crosshairs Ad 'There's Consequences to That Action'

Author	Comment
Aunor	Rep Gabrielle Giffords Said of Sarah Palin's Crosshairs Ad 'There's Consequences to That Action'		Lead	[-]
Posts: 1062 January 10, 2011 6:07 PM	Remove this ad Last March, she appeared on MSNBC to urge caution on violent rhetoric. We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,”� she said. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Aunor		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1062 January 10, 2011 6:09 PM	So did Palin go to far? Kind of odd that we find ourselves here now.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ThisCharmingFan		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13614 January 10, 2011 6:12 PM The disputatious one	People are also forgetting that her office was vandalized earlier, but i'm sure that was a lunatic as well. Oh, well, no big deal, Jews are always getting killed.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Tennesseebadger		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2561 January 10, 2011 6:24 PM	Why yes, it's just like she pulled the trigger. Although Obama's characterization of the Republicans makes him guilty too. It was a great bi partisan effort though. The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
XPModel		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1163 January 10, 2011 7:00 PM	Tennesseebadger wrote: Why yes, it's just like she pulled the trigger. Although Obama's characterization of the Republicans makes him guilty too. It was a great bi partisan effort though. The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD. So basically if you give in to our threats and back down then we'll stop the rightie hate? Is that it. F You.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bhambadger		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8311 January 10, 2011 7:05 PM pussycraptacular	Tennesseebadger wrote: The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD. Irony, thy name is Tennesseebadger. So the reason a Democrat got shot is because those gosh darn Democrats just won't do what they're supposed to do. Nice. Your version of, "Well, her skirt was so short, she was just asking for it." People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LamontS1		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4106 January 10, 2011 7:27 PM	Democrats put cross-hairs on Republican districts/congressmen in 2004. In the 2008 campaign Obama said,"2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". Also, " defeated Democrat Congressman Harry Mitchell did the same thing to JD Hayworth a few years ago right here in Arizona, running a campaign ad featuring JD Hayworth in the crosshairs of a rifle."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ol Badger		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 23762 January 10, 2011 7:33 PM On hiatus	Tennesseebadger wrote: If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Wow. These ARE the good old days!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17428 January 10, 2011 7:34 PM	Barack Obama quotes: If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. – June 2008. I want you to go out and talk to your neighbors… I want you to argue with them, get in their faces. – September 2008. I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry. – March 2009. Barack may well get his wish. Radical's vs Radical's. End of argument. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
badgering		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4469 January 10, 2011 7:42 PM "Crowds. Queing. Waiting. Bad weather. Many liberals, few conservatives and virtually no libertarians. These conditions are tolerable only at a Buckyville tailgate." - badgering on the inauguration events	Joe Manchin's "Dead Aim" ads were of the same ilk.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ThisCharmingFan		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13614 January 10, 2011 8:06 PM The disputatious one	Remove this ad badgering wrote: Joe Manchin's "Dead Aim" ads were of the same ilk. Oh, darn it. I'm confused. Just a few short weeks ago, the conservatives were crowing about Manchin and how he was really a feather in their cap.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Tennesseebadger		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2561 January 10, 2011 8:30 PM	Ol Badger wrote: Tennesseebadger wrote: If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Wow. What's the matter Old Badger? Do you not agree with my theory that the rhetoric is elevated because we are fighting over things that matter ? That's why the rheotoric is so hot. Don't pretend that one party is significantly better behaved than the other on the nasty tone of the debate. It's nasty in the country and on this board because people on both sides of isle care about what happens. It's the issues that are driving the words, not the words driving the debate. If you want things to cool down, get rid of the controversy for the other side (the same argumant I made could be from the democratic side just as easily, but the repubs aren't going to back down and allow open boarders and stop resistance to Obama Care just to mollify the opposition). All I'm saying is, it's hot,, and may very well get hotter-- and more violent-- as the country stuggles with competing agendas of the left and right.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Boulder Badger		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4267 January 10, 2011 8:34 PM	LamontS1 wrote: Democrats put cross-hairs on Republican districts/congressmen in 2004. No they didn't. In the 2008 campaign Obama said,"2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” That's called a joke. It's also a quote from "The Untouchables." Also, " defeated Democrat Congressman Harry Mitchell did the same thing to JD Hayworth a few years ago right here in Arizona, running a campaign ad featuring JD Hayworth in the crosshairs of a rifle." The omitted context is that Hayworth was lablelled the "target" of a justice department probe into Jack Abramoff. Nothing about "second-amendment remedies" or "don't retreat, reload."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Tennesseebadger		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2561 January 10, 2011 8:38 PM	XPModel wrote: Tennesseebadger wrote: Why yes, it's just like she pulled the trigger. Although Obama's characterization of the Republicans makes him guilty too. It was a great bi partisan effort though. The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD. So basically if you give in to our threats and back down then we'll stop the rightie hate? Is that it. F You. Fuck me ? ! Wait, where is the new restrained political dialouge? Thanks for making my point. People care about issues and are quite willing to tell someone else to Fuck off rather than give in or be civil about the debate. You make my point better than I could have myself: it's the issues driving the rhetoric, not the verbage drivng the issues.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
whirly711		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6596 January 10, 2011 10:03 PM THE JETER	Tenn - you said the bs rhetoric is fine, because our president is trying to give us all equal health insurance If you think providing all Americans with equal health are "fighting words", there is something very much wrong with your opinion. You use the word "socialist" as if its a the worst thing on earth and almost worth the bs fueled killing Our Interstate highway system is "socialist" too (and many other aspects of government) - what shall we do about that? (rhetorical) Its Time for Some Badger Football!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Moshalito		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5652 January 10, 2011 10:10 PM	It's funny that when Hillary almost got a health care bill passed in the mid 1990s no one was screaming about socialism. It's the nutty right wing rhetoric that has changed.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17428 January 10, 2011 10:33 PM	Moshalito wrote: It's funny that when Hillary almost got a health care bill passed in the mid 1990s no one was screaming about socialism. It's the nutty right wing rhetoric that has changed. I don't imagine we were $14 trillion in debt, spending trillions on do nothing programs, calling the opposition "enemies" or pushing legislation that, at any given time, 60-80% of the country disagree's with. Things like healthcare mandates, unpopular immigration reform, saying police acted "stupidly" when they did no such thing, congressional kick-backs for healthcare votes, misguided economic policy costing a trillion and increasing unemployment, etc etc. Why wouldn't right wing rhetoric change over 20 years? Should we be arguing about Monica and lying under oath? Hasn't the radical left changed their rhetoric? Overall that was a pretty dumb post. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ol Badger		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 23762 January 10, 2011 10:50 PM On hiatus	Tennesseebadger wrote: What's the matter Old Badger? Do you not agree with my theory that the rhetoric is elevated because we are fighting over things that matter ? That's why the rheotoric is so hot. Don't pretend that one party is significantly better behaved than the other on the nasty tone of the debate. Well, some of the issues being fought over certainly are serious, but others are completely frivolous. How much time has right-wing talk radio/tv spent on Obama's birthplace, for example? But my "wow" was over your assertion that if the liberals would just undo their legislation that would restore amity. Only two things wrong with this: First, the threatening language far predates this Administration, so clearly there's more afoot than you suggest. And second, this would be rewarding those threatening violence. Conservatives are always talking about what "message" would be sent by various actions. Well, your solution would send this message, very loudly: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION OR CONGRESS IS DOING, THREATEN TO SHOOT THEM. AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, SHOOT! Some "solution" that is. As for the relative behavior of each side: There is zero question that one side (not party, mind you, but side) of American politics has adopted a much nastier tone than the other. One side accuses the other of "treason". One side talks about "elimination" of the other. One side has a rising star who had this to say in 2008: "I am very concerned that he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views." When asked...: "How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti-American? You've already suspected Barack Obama, is he alone or are there others?" [X] answered, "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look...I wish they would...I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that." Wanna speculate on which side is saying these things? These ARE the good old days!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Buddj4		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6796 January 10, 2011 10:56 PM "I too, have never experienced a "meat raffle". I'm thinking about bringing the concept to Texas."	Boulder Badger wrote: LamontS1 wrote: Democrats put cross-hairs on Republican districts/congressmen in 2004. No they didn't. In the 2008 campaign Obama said,"2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” That's called a joke. It's also a quote from "The Untouchables." Also, " defeated Democrat Congressman Harry Mitchell did the same thing to JD Hayworth a few years ago right here in Arizona, running a campaign ad featuring JD Hayworth in the crosshairs of a rifle." The omitted context is that Hayworth was lablelled the "target" of a justice department probe into Jack Abramoff. Nothing about "second-amendment remedies" or "don't retreat, reload." All of which proves it's the evil righties who have a monopoly in that sort of rhetoric.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
XPModel		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1163 January 10, 2011 11:01 PM	Tennesseebadger wrote: XPModel wrote: Tennesseebadger wrote: Why yes, it's just like she pulled the trigger. Although Obama's characterization of the Republicans makes him guilty too. It was a great bi partisan effort though. The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD. So basically if you give in to our threats and back down then we'll stop the rightie hate? Is that it. F You. Fuck me ? ! Wait, where is the new restrained political dialouge? Thanks for making my point. People care about issues and are quite willing to tell someone else to Fuck off rather than give in or be civil about the debate. You make my point better than I could have myself: it's the issues driving the rhetoric, not the verbage drivng the issues. I used the first letter of a curse word to indicate disgust with your statement. I did not state that I intended to use my second amendment rights to get even. And I make your point? You don't have a point other than you want the "other" side to captulate in order to get the regressives to act in a civil manner. Nice point!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17428 January 10, 2011 11:08 PM	Remove this ad XPModel wrote: Tennesseebadger wrote: XPModel wrote: Tennesseebadger wrote: Why yes, it's just like she pulled the trigger. Although Obama's characterization of the Republicans makes him guilty too. It was a great bi partisan effort though. The reason the rhetoric is so hot is because the issues are so hot. If you want the rhetoric to back down, then just close the boarder and repeal Obama's socialist medical plan. That will take down the rightie language you hate so much. Then you'll just get to deal with the leftie blogosphere and MSLSD. So basically if you give in to our threats and back down then we'll stop the rightie hate? Is that it. F You. Fuck me ? ! Wait, where is the new restrained political dialouge? Thanks for making my point. People care about issues and are quite willing to tell someone else to Fuck off rather than give in or be civil about the debate. You make my point better than I could have myself: it's the issues driving the rhetoric, not the verbage drivng the issues. I used the first letter of a curse word to indicate disgust with your statement. I did not state that I intended to use my second amendment rights to get even. And I make your point? You don't have a point other than you want the "other" side to captulate in order to get the regressives to act in a civil manner. Nice point! What an idiot As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote