bemused_leftist (
bemused_leftist) wrote2011-01-11 09:10 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Craziness all right.... Dem defends their target symbols
A person known to be mentally disturbed easily buys a gun that shoots 31 bullets -- and what is everyone talking about? Chain store logos vs viewfinder marks.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-tim-pawlenty-2012-presidential-race-/1
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for example, used red bull’s eyes on a map to show the GOP candidates in its sights. Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the DCCC, told the Palm Beach Post over the weekend that the Democratic map was not threatening since it used an image that is also associated with Target, the national retail chain.”
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-tim-pawlenty-2012-presidential-race-/1
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for example, used red bull’s eyes on a map to show the GOP candidates in its sights. Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the DCCC, told the Palm Beach Post over the weekend that the Democratic map was not threatening since it used an image that is also associated with Target, the national retail chain.”
no subject
Yes, that comment was sort of boggling.
As for "second amendment solutions", if all this heat (another violent metaphor) were being directed at Engels or Coulter or Beck or Limbaugh, I wouldn't much care (except that it's a distraction from the important issue, ie gun control).
I'm not sure Palin deserves to be such a, er, target, though. I've never seen her quoted with anything as possibly-serious as "second amendment solutions" (which I might accept as a metaphor, but it's a metaphor at a whole different level, imo).
no subject
I'm not sure, myself.
But I gotta say that this (http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html) is enough to make me disgusted. This is a clear editorial choice.
no subject
no subject
Why do you assign it the status of "troll"?
no subject
no subject
I don't know where you live (except that I don't believe it's Tehran, and never have; I don't know what your LJ information is supposed to convey except "I don't tell the truth"; for one thing, your IP address is out of Washington DC) but I'm pretty sure it's not in any conservative part of America.
Dude. When I said that my neighbors hold those opinions, I meant it. They're not unintelligent people, but many of them believe that I, and people like me, *are the enemy*. When they say things like this, they're not trolling; they're expressing legitimate doubts.
They're scared.
no subject
no subject
This is one that just didn't get deleted.
If a comment comes out that says "hey, we're trying our best, but we're overwhelmed, and we're sorry about missing comments X, Y, and Z" then I'll take it at face value.
In the meantime, given that this comment came in at a time when trollish, offensive comments were being quickly removed, there just isn't a reason to believe that this one was left up merely by accident.
no subject
Imo it's ridiculous to think that it was deliberately left up in an editorial decision. At what level would that decision be made, and with what motive?
no subject
And whatever argument you're making, please STFU; because the software you're talking about deletes things before, not after, they get placed on a website.
The fact that these comments went live and then got deleted says irrevocably that there were *people* making each, individual, decision, and that people get to bear the brunt of those decisions.
no subject
Google's first search page shows it as early as March 2010. One rather hysterical site says it appears in GOING ROGUE as a quote from her father. I'm not arsed, er, I'm too lazy to use Google's 'custom' date feature to see how long ago it was first noted.
That site also has this, which still sounds pretty metaphorical to me.
2010 Candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada stated during her campaign for U.S. Congress that:
you know, our founding fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. and in fact thomas jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
i hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? i’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out.”
no subject
Yep. If I were married to Harry Reid I would be totally comforted by the idea that this was clearly a metaphor. No worries here.
no subject
However on the metaphor in general. Occasional assassinations may succeed. But there's no way any sort of organized march on Washington by peasants carrying muskets (or even semi-automatic guns with 31 bullet clips) could succeed on a large scale. So the 'revolution' idea has to be a metaphor.
no subject
Oh, right, I'm so sorry, because the idea is stupid and can't succeed, therefore OBVIOUSLY no one meant it seriously and it HAS to be a metaphor.
Duh.
no subject
no subject
Nobody's suggested "marching with muskets" for over 100 years.
But being "armed and dangerous"? *That* is something that has legitimately American precedents.