*GASP* Democrats Used Targets on Maps, Too!

by

44

Paul Krugman said of Sarah palin’s target map which she posted on her Facebook page:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

The ladies on The View condemned the violent imagery, as well, with Joy Behar wheezing, “it looks like an “Al Qaeda Christmas card!…”

Verum Serum has discovered, as shocking and dismaying as it is,  that Democrats have used a “menacing” target Strategy map, too.  This one even uses  blatant militaristic language –  “behind enemy lines”, the horror!:

I have an idea for Republicans and Democrats. Instead of the super-scary, menacing graphics, how about something a bit kinder and gentler…. something that won’t inspire violence from the populous…

For the Dems, I suggest something along these lines:

For Republicans, how about this?:

Let’s hope and pray they take my advice. Together we can put an end to menacing imagery on maps.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Kathleen McKinley at RWN, and Daily Gator thanks!

Share

44 thoughts on “*GASP* Democrats Used Targets on Maps, Too!”

  1. Do you understand the difference between crosshairs and targets?

    Targets imply a focus point.

    Crosshairs imply looking down the scope of a rifle.

    Your comparison is a failure.

    Like

  3. What usually shoots at target, Jan? Let’s face it…this is horribly scary, too.

    Let us not forget Obama’s own words to his minions:

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. ”

    Guns….targets…a left wing Obama voter shooting through Eric Cantor’s window… .see what I’m saying???

    Like

  4. Targets imply a focus point.

    Or the target of an archer. Or a knife thrower. Or a dart thrower. Or someone using a urinal with one of those cool little target thingies in it.

    Why do the Dems want to pee on America?

    Like

  6. Pingback: Selective Outrage Syndrome strikes Leftists! « The Daley Gator

  8. Palin should adopt the slogan “Kiss the Dems Goodbye”. Put a lipstick kiss on each Congressional district due for a smack. A taste of Sarah is better than what they’ll get from the voters.

    Like

  9. I think the difference isn’t so much the crosshairs vs. bullseyes as it is the perceived audience. In other words, look at the crosshairs/bullseyes in context of the people who might casually visit the DNC website vs. whoever is fanatical enough to stay plugged in to Sarah Palin’s facebook™ page.

    Like

  11. Does anybody remember the President telling his supporters to “push” back? I know the poor black guy that got beat up by Union thugs remembers. I think the left thinks that concerned citizens (normal people) suffer the same affliction that they suffer. We don’t faint at the sight of anyone and we don’t make pledges to individuals. We certainly aren’t mesmorized by slick words or become killing zombies at the sight of “sights”. In other words we’re not as weak minded as the lemmings on the left.

    Like

  12. Ah ha. So Sarah Palin Facebook fans are fanatics, eh, Chen?

    Interesting take.

    Surely you’re messin’ with me. Fan is short for fanatic.

    But put that aside for a second.

    On facebook, updates from your “fans” show up right along with your “friends”, of course. And since she really isn’t the personal friend, I would think that anyone who wanted to keep up with Sarah Palin in that fashion could be called a fanatic.

    But I’m looking at this story from a slightly different perspective: Why do people keep picking on Sarah Palin? I can see why when she was running for something, but the fact that people are still doing it now might be indicative of something. Not sure. It’s still fun?

    Like

  13. There’s are endless numbers of people and groups you can be fans of on Facebook, Chen. Right now, I’m being invited to become a fan of certain candidates for congress, every other day. I usually “fan them” and others because it’s a small way of showing support. I’m a Facebook Fan of Sarah Palin’s, too, but since I’m not on Facebook that often, I usually see her posts elsewhere, first, or not at all.

    but the fact that people are still doing it now might be indicative of something. Not sure.

    Liberals are obsessed with her because they rightly see her as a threat (not a mortal one, stop quaking).

    The tea party movement has quite surpassed her on that score, however and now it gets most of the negative attention.

    ‘Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.’ – Saul Alinsky.

    That’s what’s been going on.

    Like

  14. Surely you’re messin’ with me. Fan is short for fanatic.

    But they lost that equivalence generations ago. Don’t hide behind semantic tripe. I was just telling somebody earlier today how much I enjoyed your visits here back when you first started the Alliance. First time you’d come to mind since that time. And then you go and try to pass this nonsense off. My reverie has been so rudely interrupted.

    look at the crosshairs/bullseyes in context of the people who might casually visit the DNC website vs. whoever is fanatical enough to stay plugged in to Sarah Palin’s facebook™ page.

    This is pretty retarded. “Staying plugged in” to somebody’s Facebook page requires one click. It doesn’t require “fanaticism” – curiosity will do fine. Visiting a site takes more effort and devotion than accepting a Facebook recommendation. Not that it made any sense anyway: fanatics are just as likely to visit the DNC page as they are Palin’s page.

    Like

  16. But they lost that equivalence generations ago. Don’t hide behind semantic tripe.

    All fanatics are fans, but not all fans are fanatics. How’s that? And examples of equivalence in popular culture are not that old. But I did put that aside.

    I was just telling somebody earlier today how much I enjoyed your visits here back when you first started the Alliance. First time you’d come to mind since that time. And then you go and try to pass this nonsense off. My reverie has been so rudely interrupted.

    Well, what can I say? It’s just my opinion. But I’m glad you’re still here too.

    This is pretty retarded. “Staying plugged in” to somebody’s Facebook page requires one click. It doesn’t require “fanaticism” – curiosity will do fine. Visiting a site takes more effort and devotion than accepting a Facebook recommendation. Not that it made any sense anyway: fanatics are just as likely to visit the DNC page as they are Palin’s page.

    Absent hard data on who visits where, I’m going to reiterate that the difference is in the perception. The party insiders, organizers, donors, etc. that would stumble upon a visual aid on the DLC site, vs. a relatively high profile Facebook blast to a mob in a political environment that is a little crazier than normal.

    But since website visits and facebook updates aren’t exactly the same thing, let’s see if we can compare apples to apples, shall we?

    As I type this, the DLC facebook page has 820 fans. Palin’s page has 1.5 million fans. If we’re going with “just as likely”, I’d say the odds are more than a little lopsided.

    Like

  17. As I type this, the DLC facebook page has 820 fans. Palin’s page has 1.5 million fans. If we’re going with “just as likely”, I’d say the odds are more than a little lopsided.

    I think all that suggests is that Sarah Palin is far more popular than the DLC.

    Like

  18. As I type this, the DLC facebook page has 820 fans. Palin’s page has 1.5 million fans. If we’re going with “just as likely”, I’d say the odds are more than a little lopsided.

    Your original point was that Palin supporters were “fanatical enough to stay plugged in to Palin’s Facebook page.” Since it takes no effort to stay plugged into anybody’s Facebook page (it takes more effort to unplug yourself), that was silly. And the size of the audience should not be a factor in determining the acceptability of somebody’s statements: they are objectionable or not on their own merits.

    Like

  19. I think all that suggests is that Sarah Palin is far more popular than the DLC.

    And, by nothing more than the law of averages, garnering the attention of a lot more fanatics. My point.

    Your original point was that Palin supporters were “fanatical enough to stay plugged in to Palin’s Facebook page.” Since it takes no effort to stay plugged into anybody’s Facebook page (it takes more effort to unplug yourself), that was silly.

    There’s no four year degree in the fanatic arts. There’s no boot camp to endure. There’s no test to pass. You’re either fanatic about something, or not really. If you wish to receive daily facebook updates from Sarah Palin, well, you might be a little more fanatical about her than I am. Effort isn’t really a criteria.

    And the size of the audience should not be a factor in determining the acceptability of somebody’s statements: they are objectionable or not on their own merits.

    That’s not what I’m claiming. I’m saying that a few people are apparently raising an eyebrow at the visualization of a million and a half fanatical tea partiers getting an update on their iPhone with a map and sniper crosshairs trained on various locations. That visualization doesn’t really resonate when applied to the DNC site.

    Kind of dumb debate, I know. Sarah Palin threads are a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, I guess. Just wondering aloud.

    Like

  20. I’m saying that a few people are apparently raising an eyebrow at the visualization of a million and a half fanatical tea partiers getting an update on their iPhone with a map and sniper crosshairs trained on various locations.

    All fans are not fanatics, as you yourself said. And I doubt even a tiny portion of her fans are “fanatics” whatever you mean by that, but I’m assuming dangerous loons who will react like Pavlov’s dogs at the sight of crosshairs, and go on mad shooting sprees targeting Democrat congressmen.

    See, I think of them, as folks who like Palin because she’s has an appealing personality, and they heartily agree with her political philosophy.

    Like

  21. You’re either fanatic about something, or not really.

    ??? That’s not even true. There’s a complete spectrum of fandom, with an arbitrarily-drawn line of “fanatic.”

    If you wish to receive daily facebook updates from Sarah Palin, well, you might be a little more fanatical about her than I am.

    That’s about as wishy-washy a sentence as you could concoct. Put more plainly, I might be a little more interested in her than you are.

    There are certainly Palin fanatics, as there are certainly Obama fanatics. Probably too many on both sides. But I wouldn’t paint either side with the nasty brush you’re using.

    Day 10 of the Fanatical Sarah Palin Devotee Violence Watch:

    Nothing to report, but the menace continues to be menacing. A palpable and growing menace that feeds off an old facebook entry that nobody reads anymore. Will the siege by these gun-totin’ Palin fanatics never end? Dang they’re menacing.

    Like

  22. ??? That’s not even true. There’s a complete spectrum of fandom, with an arbitrarily-drawn line of “fanatic.”

    It’s true in the sense that the line is drawn at “indifferent”, and anything above it is a level of fanaticism (the range of your fandom portion of the spectrum). Now, certainly there are those who are indifferent and still “fan” Palin’s facebook page, but naturally a sample of the million and a half people clicking “become a fan” are going to be tilted towards the fanatical side. That’s what I meant when I said might be a little more fanatical than I am. (perhaps I should have elevated it to “probably”?)

    That’s about as wishy-washy a sentence as you could concoct. Put more plainly, I might be a little more interested in her than you are.

    see above

    Like

  23. (I’ll of course concede that there is the percentage of Palin haters and general media types who probably “fan” her to look for news and/or dirt in addition to the “indifferent”)

    /luv u guys

    Like

  25. It’s true in the sense that the line is drawn at “indifferent”, and anything above it is a level of fanaticism

    Er, no. From dictionary.com:

    Fan — an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport.

    Fanatic — A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

    Fanaticism starts where reason stops.

    Like

  28. Pingback: AFL-CIO Chief Trumka: Sarah Palin Terrorizing Union Thugs Or Something « Nice Deb

  29. Pingback: The Tuscon Shooting and The Political Aftermath « Nice Deb

  32. As someone metions above its gun sites versus dartboards.

    Whatever your point scoring it still doesnt change the nature of political debate in the US which is totally out of control and much worse on the right than on the left. Everyone else in the world apart from those defending the right’s rhetoric sees this.

    Denial is a not a river in Egypt its a problem the US cannot get over and one which will scare everyone.

    Like

  33. As someone metions above its gun sites versus dartboards.

    Or as someone else mentions above, and Palin herself has explained, it’s surveyors symbols vs crosshairs.

    Difference of which can be seen here:

    http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/01/09/the-difference-between-purveyor-symbols-and-crosshairs/#more-157248

    And as Geoff mentioned, above, the Dem targets could be the targets of an archers or knife throwers. Why do Dems want to knife Republicans?

    the nature of political debate in the US which is totally out of control and much worse on the right than on the left.

    You cannot possibly be serious. Get your head out of the sand. Conservatives have no history of calling for violence, but the left does it on a regular basis.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    Like

  34. Really? Is that the best you can come up with? You don’t see the difference between Palin targeting individual congressmen/women in individual seats and the Democrats targeting the whole vote in states? You don’t see that? Did you read the captions or just look at the pictures? Come on, that’s like…….ah……the difference between surveyor map symbols and crosshairs. hahahaha

    Like

  36. You don’t see the difference between Palin targeting individual congressmen/women in individual seats and the Democrats targeting the whole vote in states?

    Not really – they both seem pretty benign to me, consistent with centuries of political strategizing and conventional campaign lingo. But if you’re really concerned, then follow the Verum Serum link and you’ll find another Dem chart that targets individual GOP members.

    I’m far more concerned with video games in which you kill George Bush, Nobel Peace Prize winners who say they want to kill Bush, Democratic political groups who take out newspaper ads saying they want to put Rumsfeld against a wall and pull the trigger, and ex-SNL comedians who sing songs at their shows like “Let’s Get Together and Kill George Bush.” I’m bugged by a Wonkette columnist and Huffington Post moderator trying to figure out how to kill Dick Cheney.

    You? You don’t seem to recognize that as hateful or violent rhetoric. Why not?

    Like

  37. You don’t see the difference between Palin targeting individual congressmen/women in individual seats and the Democrats targeting the whole vote in states?

    ***

    Not really – they both seem pretty benign to me,

    Same to me. But I do find the campaign ad used by an AZ Dem candidate against incumbent JD Hayworth, which views the congressman through sniper crosshairs as disturbing and inappropriate.

    Candidate Targets Congressman With Sniper Crosshairs In Campaign Ad

    Steve B is afraid to click on the Malkin link. I can tell. Sarah Palin’s surveyor’s marks verses all that – hmmmm who are the violent and deranged ones?

    Like

  38. Pingback: Are people on the political left more civil than those on the right? « Wintery Knight

  39. Pingback: Dems Use Bomb Sites On Political Targets: DNC Takes Down “Violent” Maps | News Copy, New York

  40. “Everybody’s doing it” makes it OK, right? Maybe they were dartboards.

    That and shooting at targets when you’re “behind enemy lines” just plain doesn’t make sense.

    Like

  41. “Everybody’s doing it” makes it OK, right? Maybe they were dartboards.

    That and shooting at targets when you’re “behind enemy lines” just plain doesn’t make sense.

    How limber you must be to contort yourself into a position where it is wrong for Palin but previous uses by the left are completely innocuous.

    Like

  42. Pingback: Which Democratic Congressman Said of GOP Gov. Rick Scott: ‘They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.’ « Nice Deb

  43. Pingback: » VIDEO: Union Thug Beats on Effigy of SC Gov. Nikki Haley With a Baseball Bat

  44. Pingback: The Nanny State Attacks: Is That an Assault Weapon Under Your Arm or Are You Just Glad to See Me? - Downtrend.com

Leave a comment