Actions have consiquences!!!

Yet instead of coming into this thread and calling out the daily kos for the exact same kind of "violent imagery" you arrogantly railed against yesterday-you instead get up on your hypocrital high horse to rant about me and to whitewash your posts from yeasterday~

Forgive her.

She obviously hadn't read up on your rules for posting and didn't know she had to stop by this particular thread and reiterate her previously stated positions to satisfy your requirements.
 
Forgive her.

She obviously hadn't read up on your rules for posting and didn't know she had to stop by this particular thread and reiterate her previously stated positions to satisfy your requirements.

"Whitewashing", that's just insane.

*sigh* Now I have to go and reprint my comments to once again show everybody what a lying sack of shit she is.
 
But one of Sarah Palin's workers says they never put gun sights on Giffords...


"...We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," said Rebecca Mansour, who works for Palin's political action committee..."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html

Yet Mama Grizzly says "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

10:43 AM Nov 4th, 2010 via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Retweeted by 100+ people
.SarahPalinUSA

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457#
 
I belive that considering our nations history, rhetoric against polititians using gun imagery should not be used and that to do so it irresponsable.

I belive that Palin will suffer a consiquence for what she did, I belive she will lose support by some who will consider her more radical than they would have.

Don't you mean that that's what you hope can be accomplished, if you can keep spewing this BS long enough?
 
From my perspective that is not as bad as Palin's crosshairs. A bullseye can be derived from anything, cross hairs are only from guns.

But Id say whoever KOS is they should remove the bullseye.

So crosshairs doesn't refer to anything but guns, is that what you're trying to offer?
 
..."Protesters parade an altered photo of President Barack Obama sporting an Adolf Hitler-like mustache.

A candidate for the U.S. Senate muses about gun "remedies" if election results don't go the right way.

Members of Congress are spat on and taunted with racial epithets before casting votes for a healthcare reform bill.

Welcome to politics American-style.

For the past few years, some public officeholders and pundits have warned that the political rhetoric has gotten a little too overheated in a country known for its loose gun laws and history of presidential assassinations.

Now, in the aftermath of Saturday's Arizona shooting rampage that left a congresswoman in critical condition from a gunshot to the head, six people dead and 13 others wounded, some are saying it's time to reset the tone of America's political discourse..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0919808120110109
 
Everybody already knew...

However, feel free to reprint your comments just so we can show people one more time.

For starters...

"I've always detested the use of violent imagery, period."

"There's a better way of showing the people you want to defeat besides using a picture of crosshairs. And saying it's about voting, not shooting, is a cop-out. If it's about voting, show a picture of a ballot with an "X" on it, or something similar."

"I don't blame her for this one person's actions. But neither do I credit her (or anyone) for using violent imagery and/or language re: the defeat of her political foes because you never know what nut out there is going to take that as an invitation to act."

"Bee ess. I criticized violent imagery when it occurred and was discussed on boards I frequented. You weren't on those boards.

Furthermore, I came to this board in April 2009, months after bush left office, and the main topics involved Obama."

"IMO this is indefensible.
"They noted that Giffords' tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" by shooting an M-16 rifle with him."

"Thanks for mentioning the Daily Kos. And remind me again where I blamed Palin."
 
For starters...

"I've always detested the use of violent imagery, period."

"There's a better way of showing the people you want to defeat besides using a picture of crosshairs. And saying it's about voting, not shooting, is a cop-out. If it's about voting, show a picture of a ballot with an "X" on it, or something similar."

"I don't blame her for this one person's actions. But neither do I credit her (or anyone) for using violent imagery and/or language re: the defeat of her political foes because you never know what nut out there is going to take that as an invitation to act."

"Bee ess. I criticized violent imagery when it occurred and was discussed on boards I frequented. You weren't on those boards.

Furthermore, I came to this board in April 2009, months after bush left office, and the main topics involved Obama."

"IMO this is indefensible.
"They noted that Giffords' tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" by shooting an M-16 rifle with him."

"Thanks for mentioning the Daily Kos. And remind me again where I blamed Palin."

What do you think of Palin's spokesperson denying that they put gunsights on the map on their SarahPac site?
 
For starters...

"I've always detested the use of violent imagery, period."

"There's a better way of showing the people you want to defeat besides using a picture of crosshairs. And saying it's about voting, not shooting, is a cop-out. If it's about voting, show a picture of a ballot with an "X" on it, or something similar."

"I don't blame her for this one person's actions. But neither do I credit her (or anyone) for using violent imagery and/or language re: the defeat of her political foes because you never know what nut out there is going to take that as an invitation to act."

"Bee ess. I criticized violent imagery when it occurred and was discussed on boards I frequented. You weren't on those boards.
Furthermore, I came to this board in April 2009, months after bush left office, and the main topics involved Obama."

"IMO this is indefensible.
"They noted that Giffords' tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" by shooting an M-16 rifle with him."

"Thanks for mentioning the Daily Kos. And remind me again where I blamed Palin."

I was and YOU NEVER criticized violent imagery when it was directed at any republican/conservative- Indeed you pounced on ANY opportunity to bash and or malign our military~

Just like this thread where you are presented a perfect opportunity to critize the daily kos you choose instead to defend your hypocrisy---nice.
 
I was and YOU NEVER criticized violent imagery when it was directed at any republican/conservative- Indeed you pounced on ANY opportunity to bash and or malign our military~

Just like this thread where you are presented a perfect opportunity to critize the daily kos you choose instead to defend your hypocrisy---nice.

exactly, the far left wack jobs on this board all claim they condemn the left's violent imagery, but when that violent imagery is shown, do they condemn it? no....they attack either the person who presented the facts or continue to condmen the right and demand the right change FIRST
 
From my perspective that is not as bad as Palin's crosshairs. A bullseye can be derived from anything, cross hairs are only from guns.

But Id say whoever KOS is they should remove the bullseye.

Wrong. There are crosshairs in any number of surveying and optical measuring devices.

A bullseye is for a target only. It may be something less lethal than a gun, but its very nature is to be a target.



Besides, aren't you splitting hairs in this? Bullseye is ok but crosshairs are inciting murder? :rofl:
 
exactly, the far left wack jobs on this board all claim they condemn the left's violent imagery, but when that violent imagery is shown, do they condemn it? no....they attack either the person who presented the facts or continue to condmen the right and demand the right change FIRST

I get it. When I wrote "I've always detested the use of violent imagery, period." and "There's a better way of showing the people you want to defeat besides using a picture of crosshairs." your pea brain automatically adds the word "except for the Daily Kos" to my comments.

Look up the word "always". It's an absolute.

:loser:
 
Wrong. There are crosshairs in any number of surveying and optical measuring devices.

A bullseye is for a target only. It may be something less lethal than a gun, but its very nature is to be a target.



Besides, aren't you splitting hairs in this? Bullseye is ok but crosshairs are inciting murder? :rofl:

Mama Grizzly says "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

10:43 AM Nov 4th, 2010 via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Retweeted by 100+ people
.SarahPalinUSA

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457#
 
I get it. When I wrote "I've always detested the use of violent imagery, period." and "There's a better way of showing the people you want to defeat besides using a picture of crosshairs." your pea brain automatically adds the word "except for the Daily Kos" to my comments.

Look up the word "always". It's an absolute.

:loser:

you claiming you "always" do so is meaningless, because when the imagery is shown here, you do not condemn it, you do not attack with the vitriol you do with the right

there is a whole thread about the left's violent imagery and words and you of course ignore it...i don't believe your claim you "always" detest it, actions speak louder than words and so far i haven't seen you condemn any lefties violent imagery....and more importantly, you have NOT attacked with the vigor you have attacked the right

that clearly shows you honestly don't care if a lefty does it...
 
you claiming you "always" do so is meaningless, because when the imagery is shown here, you do not condemn it, you do not attack with the vitriol you do with the right

there is a whole thread about the left's violent imagery and words and you of course ignore it...i don't believe your claim you "always" detest it, actions speak louder than words and so far i haven't seen you condemn any lefties violent imagery....and more importantly, you have NOT attacked with the vigor you have attacked the right

that clearly shows you honestly don't care if a lefty does it...

You suck at logic.
 
wow...what a great logical refutation

continue your vitriol hate speech....its all you have

I don't have to use hate speech. My candidate is sitting in the White House.

It's RWs who are furious that a Democrat is running the country, and who are using fear and hate against his agenda. It's RWs talking about refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, etc. It's RWs who carry guns to political rallies and town hall meetings. It's RWs talking about "taking back the country", as if the rest of us tax-paying citizens have no say.

Now go back and do what you always accuse us of doing and drag up bush to make your "they do it, too" argument.
 
wait a minute, you say she is to blame for the shootings, yet you don't want to prosecute her :confused:

at least lowiq was consistant and said she should be prosecuted

Are you really fucking stupid or just that dishonest Yurt? I never said Palin was to blame for the shootings.
 
Back
Top