Church, regarding that DLC map…did it target individuals? Did any of those individuals express concern about the implications of the map? Were any of those individuals later shot through the head from behind? Was the map then frantically withdrawn, while the Democrats tried to claim they had inexplicably used surveyor symbols (despite previous claims to the contrary)?
There you go again, Church. I’ve recently seen BCS, and I believe Fennec, pointing out how you set up strawmen, claiming people said things they never did.
I pointed out that Palin herself claims there’s a link between hate speech and actual violence, but I’ve never said there was a link between her crosshairs and the shooter in this case. I just pointed out that the victim express concern over Palin targeting her, and after she was actually shot, Palin immediately removed the map.
Since these facts don’t seem to satisfy your perceptions, you instead make something up…like you make up her reasons for removing it.
Pity Palin didn’t exhibit “sensitivity and good taste” after the victim complained about being targeted, instead of waiting until after she’d been shot.
Regarding your further examples of crosshairs, Church, did they target individuals? Did any of those individuals express concern about the implications of the crosshairs? Were any of those individuals later shot through the head from behind? Were the crosshairs then immediately withdrawn?
(I couldn’t see your first link…it went to a Dilbert cartoon. The second “crosshair” was a word that a reporter put in a title, not something done by Biden.)
Omigosh, I thought you were gonna come through with legitimate points here, but instead, all you showed are that you are in error: desire doesn’t show causation, Church.
If I make a Boehner voodoo doll, and stick pins in it with the desired effect of ridding us of him, and he keels over in the House, did I cause it?
No, and neither is it likely that Palin caused the Tucson shooter to act…despite all her uses of murderous imagery and phrases, which she admits lead to violence.
Which is why I never made that claim, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.
Nothing more than you continuing to set up a strawman. We disagree on enough stuff that I’d think you could find something legitimate to debate on, rather than making stuff up.
My words do indeed speak for themselves, which is why it’s distressing that you’d ignore them, and try to substitute your own, as you did with BCS.
Church, I tried to explain your error as simply as I could…I even typed slowly in case your sycophant decided to chime in…but it still seems the concept is beyond you.
It’s sad…I had thought more highly of you…but seeing this from you, and your lame efforts with BCS, you’ve gone down in my estimation. I didn’t peg you for simple lying like so many righties.
In the past I’ve stood up for you, as someone who thinks about, and stands up for, what they say. But recently you’ve sunk to the ANandy/Howgozit level.
Good luck in your future Palin-style brown-nosing.
I chose my words very carefully, Church. It was you who attempted to alter their meaning, changing “desired” to “caused”, and then acted like it was me that made the change.
Obtuse? You’re the one that can’t figure out the difference between “desired” and “caused”.
I wish you were correct, because I desire to win the lottery…but bleeep it, that desire just doesn’t equate to causing me to win the lottery.
If I make a Boehner voodoo doll, and stick pins in it with the desired effect of ridding us of him, and he keels over in the House, did I cause it?
No, and neither is it likely that Palin caused the Tucson shooter to act…despite all her uses of murderous imagery and phrases, which she admits lead to violence.
You have two choices on this, Church: Stubbornness, or Integrity.
No, Church, I absolutely promise you that if I made an apparently successful Boehner voodoo doll, such that he keeled over 3000 miles away, I would NOT believe that I caused it.
Any more than I would believe Palin has the ability to cause the deaths of her perceived political opponents, no matter how much hate, vitriol, gun imagery, and outright deathwishes she launches at them.
Even though she claims that such hate speech causes violence. That may be her desire, but cause has yet to be proven.
Oh, bleeep it, there I go, using words beyond your comprehension again.
tcolkett over 13 years ago
Oh please let her be the candidate in 2012, puh-leeeeeze!
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
She’ll never run because she might actually have to answer a question that hasn’t been pre-screened for her.
Katie Couric can be sooooo mean.
Thomas R. Williams over 13 years ago
Not only did she shoot herself in the foot, she usually had to reload two or three times before she hit it.
kreole over 13 years ago
Good map….good analogy….I really like Palin…for everything but a President. That would be scary…..
riley05 over 13 years ago
I thought those were places where she went surveying.
Gypsy8 over 13 years ago
^^That explains why she couldn’t drop that caribou. She was using a survey transit.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Church, regarding that DLC map…did it target individuals? Did any of those individuals express concern about the implications of the map? Were any of those individuals later shot through the head from behind? Was the map then frantically withdrawn, while the Democrats tried to claim they had inexplicably used surveyor symbols (despite previous claims to the contrary)?
Or is your attempt at analogy fatally flawed?
William Bednar Premium Member over 13 years ago
Don’t worry, Sarah will run in 2012! And her running mate will be Michael Steele!!
riley05 over 13 years ago
There you go again, Church. I’ve recently seen BCS, and I believe Fennec, pointing out how you set up strawmen, claiming people said things they never did.
I pointed out that Palin herself claims there’s a link between hate speech and actual violence, but I’ve never said there was a link between her crosshairs and the shooter in this case. I just pointed out that the victim express concern over Palin targeting her, and after she was actually shot, Palin immediately removed the map.
Since these facts don’t seem to satisfy your perceptions, you instead make something up…like you make up her reasons for removing it.
Pity Palin didn’t exhibit “sensitivity and good taste” after the victim complained about being targeted, instead of waiting until after she’d been shot.
Regarding your further examples of crosshairs, Church, did they target individuals? Did any of those individuals express concern about the implications of the crosshairs? Were any of those individuals later shot through the head from behind? Were the crosshairs then immediately withdrawn?
(I couldn’t see your first link…it went to a Dilbert cartoon. The second “crosshair” was a word that a reporter put in a title, not something done by Biden.)
riley05 over 13 years ago
Omigosh, I thought you were gonna come through with legitimate points here, but instead, all you showed are that you are in error: desire doesn’t show causation, Church.
If I make a Boehner voodoo doll, and stick pins in it with the desired effect of ridding us of him, and he keels over in the House, did I cause it?
No, and neither is it likely that Palin caused the Tucson shooter to act…despite all her uses of murderous imagery and phrases, which she admits lead to violence.
Which is why I never made that claim, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.
Nothing more than you continuing to set up a strawman. We disagree on enough stuff that I’d think you could find something legitimate to debate on, rather than making stuff up.
riley05 over 13 years ago
My words do indeed speak for themselves, which is why it’s distressing that you’d ignore them, and try to substitute your own, as you did with BCS.
Church, I tried to explain your error as simply as I could…I even typed slowly in case your sycophant decided to chime in…but it still seems the concept is beyond you.
It’s sad…I had thought more highly of you…but seeing this from you, and your lame efforts with BCS, you’ve gone down in my estimation. I didn’t peg you for simple lying like so many righties.
In the past I’ve stood up for you, as someone who thinks about, and stands up for, what they say. But recently you’ve sunk to the ANandy/Howgozit level.
Good luck in your future Palin-style brown-nosing.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Some who consider themselves “sharp as a tack”, don’t mention it’s the end you put your thumb on.
riley05 over 13 years ago
I chose my words very carefully, Church. It was you who attempted to alter their meaning, changing “desired” to “caused”, and then acted like it was me that made the change.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Obtuse? You’re the one that can’t figure out the difference between “desired” and “caused”.
I wish you were correct, because I desire to win the lottery…but bleeep it, that desire just doesn’t equate to causing me to win the lottery.
If I make a Boehner voodoo doll, and stick pins in it with the desired effect of ridding us of him, and he keels over in the House, did I cause it?
No, and neither is it likely that Palin caused the Tucson shooter to act…despite all her uses of murderous imagery and phrases, which she admits lead to violence.
You have two choices on this, Church: Stubbornness, or Integrity.
DamYankee22 over 13 years ago
Surveyor’s monuments don’t look like reticules.
riley05 over 13 years ago
No, Church, I absolutely promise you that if I made an apparently successful Boehner voodoo doll, such that he keeled over 3000 miles away, I would NOT believe that I caused it.
Any more than I would believe Palin has the ability to cause the deaths of her perceived political opponents, no matter how much hate, vitriol, gun imagery, and outright deathwishes she launches at them.
Even though she claims that such hate speech causes violence. That may be her desire, but cause has yet to be proven.
Oh, bleeep it, there I go, using words beyond your comprehension again.
Here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desire
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause
You have chosen stubbornness, to your detriment.