AZhitman wrote:Keep in mind, this whackjob met the Congresswoman previously nearly FOUR years ago and, according to accounts, was still seething over a perceived slight (she failed to answer one of his weirdo questions to his satisfaction). That "map" came out later, and there's little evidence to suggest he even saw it... I never did, and it references MY state.
It references three people in your state, and I don't think there's anybody in here alleging a connection between the act of violence and the message of violence. The difference between that and the Democratic example that you mentioned (besides the imagery, I suppose) was actually that the Democratic Party poster "targeted" each state in its entirety, as opposed to assigning a location (district) to a name.
AZhitman wrote:No, Isaac, I don't agree that the other instances "rightfully didn't catch the same flak". If we're gonna "tone it down", that applies to everyone. The fact of the matter is that the piece of media in question was obscure and irrelevant UNTIL something happened. Let's not be attributing any undue influence to it, and BHO won't get blamed for saying something colossally stupid either (what the deuce do knives and guns have to do with politics?)
It wasn't obscure and irrelevant, Greg. I'm almost positive that it got a mention on these boards, and I'm sure that it made national attention. Nobody's saying we shouldn't tone down other rhetoric - I'm simply pointing out that those comments didn't make national news until Republicans started putting them out there as counter-examples. The same can't be said about the poster - it made national news the day it was released.
And imagery of battle have always been present in political rhetoric. Maybe it doesn't belong there, as we're all saying in this thread, Greg, but is there a longstanding tradition of mapmaking imagery in political rhetoric? Try to stay focused, and keep side issues out of your main discussion. It only serves to make you appear unhinged.
See, Greg, the reason those comments didn't catch flak at the time (whereas Palin's poster did) have to do with the difference in message. We draw a distinction between a teenager angrily telling the world, "I hope you all die" before slamming his or her bedroom door, and a teenager angrily writing out a list of people who should be "taken out," and subsequently publishing it. That's the difference between the vague comments by the President and Vice President, and the list of 20 names with crosshairs published by the Palin camp.
AZhitman wrote:Just because we're hurting and lacking answers DOES NOT give us the right to be, as you're so fond of saying, "intellectually dishonest" with each other (and ourselves). FWIW, the efforts of Maher & his ilk in this case are NO DIFFERENT from those he disparages (the extreme, right-wing nutjobs). NO DIFFERENT. Too bad he can't see fit to be part of the solution, rather than being part of the problems, with all his capitalizing on something for financial gain. He's pathetic - and dead wrong.
And if you'll look very carefully at what I have written, I've been careful not to say that one led to the other. Try being intellectually honest enough to actually read my posts before you respond to them.
