Gun sights target things, Palin is a hunter, her supporters (I am not one mind you) are gun nuts and hunters as well. She most certainly played on that as well as a militaristic feel to the ad. To imply she was advocating violence upon these targeted districts is pure hogwash. There is zero evidence of this and to try and insist there is would be to simply imagine it is there. You can argue about the ad being inappropriate certainly, but any more than that is simply supporting the liberals who manufactured an issue out of something that was never there, never intended and here's the most important part most are getting sucked into... There was no link to this shooting, that was the assertion from the start of this post and that is what liberals were trying to have us believe from the start, when it was shown to have played no part in things, did they drop the issue? Nope, they did tone it down as they THEN hit on gun control and such, but they still hammer away at it while others pick up on it simply because they don't like the ad...fine don't like it, it has and had nothing to do with the shooting!

Oh, now your starting to win your stupid position, you lost on facts and now want to criticize grammar and spelling? Yep, I concede, I spelled something wrong so you obviously have a superior position and I must be wrong.

fyi:

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. Linguists do not normally use the term to refer to orthographical rules, although usage books and style guides that call themselves grammars may also refer to spelling and punctuation.

sorry buddy, your superior smarmy position just lost

Yes, but gunsights target things to be shot.

And even if the ad had nothing to do with the shooting (more than the correlation of the target, I mean), does not mean that you have to whine about criticism of the ad itself.

I don't see how I can 'win' anyway. Your wilful misunderstanding of my argument on context means it's like trying to play chess and being told I lost because my opponent squirted me with a water-pistol - that your post contained simple errors was not central to my argument, but it does suggest to me that you are rushing your thoughts and reactions and not taking time to breathe and consider things before you splurge onto the keyboard. It's more about trying to make lame jokes and a facile point than it is to take on board what it is you are presented.

Doesn't make you wrong, necessarily, but it does mean it's hard for you to understand what it is you are actually arguing against.

I meant grammar in the proper sense - the syntax and composition of language, the way that sentences are constructed. Punctuation is part of grammar (well, a large part of it ), and getting the right word is also, but spelling errors (or, awful puns) are not.

GMTom wrote:I had posted a link to the map earlier myself. The targets are just that, TARGETS, targeted districts.

You seem to have a problem with symbols. A gun sight is not a target. A gun sight is what you see when looking through one of these:



Do a Google image search on "target" and what you'll mostly get are these:



Sometimes a target will show a gun sight superimposed over it, but targets need not be for guns, there are targets for archery, bean bag, darts, and so on. They would never have a gun sight image on them.

You say it's "more of a call to a soldier than a call to a hit man" and I agree, but if you can admit that it's specific to guns in that sense why deny that the symbol is specific to guns a few sentences earlier? That it's only a target?

Your last sentence is perverse.

look at this thread, even even minded MX jumps into the fray suggesting something else, the start of this topic attempted to link her to the shootings, trying to criticize her (in this thread) only gives those unsubstantiated claims and outright lies some sort of credence.

I was criticizing you, not her. And are you suggesting that I should not correct errors when doing so might seem to give some support to someone making a separate error? In my post with the maps I went out of my way, in the paragraph that begins, "Now I doubt...", to make sure no support for a chain of responsibility could be drawn. I conclude by again trying to make clear that all I was saying was that a gun sight communicates more than a simple "x", which is what you were saying.

But I can now understand better your posts in general. You seem to think that a forum debate is a zero-sum game, and anything that fails to support you 100% gives aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore must be attacked. In a debate, one side must be 100% right and the other 100% wrong. You get so defensive about this you're unable to independently deal with any isolated aspect within the larger context - it's all or nothing. As you see it, because you're arguing against the "attempt to link her to the shootings" at the start of the topic, anything I write on page 13 that criticizes you in any way lends "some sort of credence" to the linkage meme. This is not rational.

Your irrationality is more than matched by those who think the maps I posted had any sort of causal link to the shooting or who think the imagery is so far out of the norm as to represent an example of the worst sort of political hostility. You could make that point without having to either go overboard in defending Palin or trying to paint your debating opponents as more evil/incorrect than the situation warrants. Your all-or-nothing attitude invites "digging in" by those you are opposing.

Diemo wrote:Actually, to play the grammer-nazi for a moment, that is a spelling error.

The word "grammar" above is a spelling error.

Glass houses, my friend...

Nope, I don't buy any of what you just said...

Gun sights can indeed mark the target at hand
just an example:
http://www.dmmitownshopper.com/Map.html
some town shopper map in Pennsylvania

and please, like this Democratic map is just oh so different (using bulls eyes granted)


There is nothing irrational either, the original claims were Palin was somehow to blame for this. That was proven false but the claims continue, any criticism (in this thread) does indeed tend to support that wrong claim. You want to criticize her ad elsewhere for being crass, for being militaristic, for being too gun happy, that's fine and dandy, but to continue in the thread that attempted to pin blame on her most certainly does give credence to that erroneous claim.
There simply is no other side, dig in all you wish ...did Palin's ad have anything to do with the shooting? If yes, then you ignore the facts of the case and you are manufacturing something that simply is not there as the facts prove you wrong. If you agree she had nothing to with the shooting, then there is nothing to debate is their? My "opponents" in this debate are simply WRONG, any criticism of her ad can certainly be made, but not in regards to it having any part in the shooting and that sir is what this thread is about and what we have been discussing.

Minister X wrote:[Your irrationality is more than matched by those who think the maps I posted had any sort of causal link to the shooting or who think the imagery is so far out of the norm as to represent an example of the worst sort of political hostility. You could make that point without having to either go overboard in defending Palin or trying to paint your debating opponents as more evil/incorrect than the situation warrants. Your all-or-nothing attitude invites "digging in" by those you are opposing.

This was written in response to Tom, but could have just as easily been applied to Danivon.

Danivon wrote:At least Min X gets it. Is he being ridiculous?

I don't think you were paying close enough attention, Danivon:

Minister X wrote:So giving Palin and her minions the benefit of every doubt I'd have to say that the use of those symbols wasn't intended to communicate anything about the use of firearms against the Dems who hold the 20 seats. But I think you'd have to admit that it was part of an effort (perhaps subconscious) to communicate more than a simple "x" would.

So, Tom posted the Democratic Party's "target map" of 2004. Yes, there is more implied than a simple "x" would. It's a place the DNC intended to focus resources and energy. That's the nature of politics--you look for "battles" you can win. No one was going to try and defeat Pelosi in her district because it's solidly liberal.

Both Democrats and Republicans use militaristic terminology. Why? Because it's an ongoing "struggle" for "dominance." Both sides want to "win." It's a "battle" of ideas. They aggressively want to win. It's more than a mere shrug of the shoulders if they lose.

However, to suggest, as Danivon did, that rhetoric was somehow, indirectly, implicitly, obliquely, subliminally, or whatever weasel word he cares to insert, responsible or even linked to this shooting is absolute tripe. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support it and that is why Danivon resorts to such detached language.

Finally, I don't believe MX supported you Danivon. If he wants to weigh in on your behalf, he is welcome to do so--but, please don't presume he is saying "me too" based on his suggestion that targets mean more than mere circles on a map.

Great commentary in the New Yorker on this topic by Hendrick Hertzberg.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/01/24/110124taco_talk_hertzberg

. . . in the immediate aftermath of the crime, the “national conversation” focussed on the nation’s poisonous political and rhetorical climate. That conversation, which was worth having before, is not less worth having now because the connection between the crime and the climate is so murky—and it may well turn out to be more productive.

At risk to being flamed, maybe you all should ratchet the tone of this forum back a little.

Dr. Fate wrote:No one has "defended" violent imagery in political debates.

I will! Damned near all so-called "violent imagery" (and certainly all that has been discussed in this thread) is just a form of colorful language, which keeps our conversations--including our political conversations--from being fatally dull. Accordingly, it was far more interesting to hear Jimmy Carter say of Ted Kennedy that he would "kick his ass" than it would have been to hear that he would "outpoll him in the nomination contest." Anyone who thinks otherwise is, quite frankly, a dull prude.

The notion that such language provokes actual violence is just stoopid. Give it a rest, already, my lefty friends. You've beaten this dead horse (apologies if the idiom offends your tender sensibilities) long enough.

Machiavelli wrote:

Dr. Fate wrote:No one has "defended" violent imagery in political debates.

I will! Damned near all so-called "violent imagery" (and certainly all that has been discussed in this thread) is just a form of colorful language, which keeps our conversations--including our political conversations--from being fatally dull. Accordingly, it was far more interesting to hear Jimmy Carter say of Ted Kennedy that he would "kick his ass" than it would have been to hear that he would "outpoll him in the nomination contest." Anyone who thinks otherwise is, quite frankly, a dull prude.

The notion that such language provokes actual violence is just stoopid. Give it a rest, already, my lefty friends. You've beaten this dead horse (apologies if the idiom offends your tender sensibilities) long enough.

I sit corrected!

Perfect, I'm conservative, I'm Republican, I don't care for Palin, I'm no big fan of the Tea party and I agree, I do not find any fault whatsoever with using such colorful language and will not back away from it. Let's see if our lefty friends (who have also used the same language) now shy away from it's use as well ...now that they "know better".

Geo, I appreciate your call for calm. (Tom...you really did mischaracterize X's post).

As X says, this isn't a zero-sum game we're playing on the fora. If I defend ricky's position on something...it doesn't mean we're best buds. If Dan backs off a position, it doesn't indicate that he's wrong about everything.

But I'm frankly amazed at the left-of-center fellows' position on all this. Aren't the most reprehensible positions the ones that need to be protected the most furiously in a free society? Don't the worst criminals deserve the most rigorous defense?

Note that I'm not saying that I find Palin's map offensive. But obviously some of you do. You don't have to back away from that opinion...I'd be embarrassed for some of you if you did at this point.

But look at where you're going with this. Will you silence your opponents under the aegis of ameliorating the tenor of the debate? Does it become ok to muzzle someone if they are offensive enough?

Dan...such a clumsy straw man you offer. If I were to campaign naked I would expect to lose handily. (Unless of course the ladies outnumbered the men in that district...) But shouldn't I be allowed to appeal to my constituents any way that I can? Would you bound my genius so that your sensibilities wouldn't be offended? If my campaign were too... 'out there'... my punishment would be losing. If my opponent ran a cleaner, more tasteful campaign and won...the narrative would change to fit the winning strategy as a matter of course.

Flag burners, those creepy Baptists at funerals, KKK marchers... man... I'd love to muzzle me some of them... but I won't. I'm not threatened by those marginalized freaks and I won't trade away any of my essential liberties for the comfort and fuzziness I'd feel shoving a rolled sock down their gullets.

Ah...that's the difference isn't it? Palin scares you and must therefore be silenced. Believe me...you can relax. She's unelectable. She was before this whole fiasco. But...shouldn't she still be censured for her perceived lack of civility?

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. (Applause.)

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other's ideas without questioning each other's love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations. (Applause.)

Bravo Mr. President. Best speech you ever gave. Let's be civil because we want to better ourselves...not to fit into someone else's perceived notions of what is good and proper.

GMTom wrote:Nope, I don't buy any of what you just said.

I stand humbled, with my Geography degree and lifelong interest in cartography, by the advertising graphics person who works for Town Shopper Coupons in rural Pennsylvania. I retract my entire line of criticism in light of this devastating demonstration of cartographic techniques. I'm truly sorry I ever brought it up.

...and you should be if you never saw such icons on a map. I don't really care how many geography degrees you hold, you simply can't tell me this is not used, I found that example with ease, like it matters some podunk town used this or not, you simply can not take your position that this is not done and it can't be taken as a target.

something about Google Mortgages


a sonar map


and the assertion a bullseye is a target, crosshairs are a different animal, oh really?
"A gun sight is not a target, a target is..." ooops maybe it IS a target?


My lord are we supposed to kill this man?


Is the New York Post suggesting Jets fans kill Peyton Manning?
If someone DID, would the Post have been liable (agreed it's in poor taste! ...but this is much worse than crosshairs on a map)


Gee, no geography degree, no advertising degree, no journalism degree and no knowledge of shooting sports but everything stated as fact is kinda proven ...wrong?