• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Scott Walker death threats after recall victory being investigated by police

Grim17 said:
This point of contention was based on the post by haymarket, when he introduced Sarah Palin to this thread by comparing that picture to the one on Palin's website targeting congressional districts on a map... A post which by the way, 4 or 5 other liberals have shown their dishonesty by attempting to defend.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read (I know it's hard, but bear with me), you'll find that haymarket's post came before the picture in question. The rest of us are contending that the meaning of the target on Walker was to defeat him in the election, unless it came after he won. You've been trying to weasel out of that basic logic since then.
 
rocket88 said:
If you go back and read (I know it's hard, but bear with me), you'll find that haymarket's post came before the picture in question.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, post #4 by haymarket, came before post #3 by sawyerloggingon... Interesting logic there.
 
Grim17 said:
I guess dishonesty goes hand in hand with those who embrace violence in the name of politics... If it wasn't, then you wouldn't have tried to compare a "target" symbol that was used to get people to vote, with one used to convey a desire to kill another human being.
Click to expand...

I am surprised you can even type words like that without breaking down into wild gales of sardonic laughter in the full realization of the ridiculousness of the partisan defense.
 
Karl said:
Ah! The expected right wing response... 'it's true because I like it, and no facts are going to change my mind, so I'm not interested in any'.

Thank you for demonstrating that to the world :)
Click to expand...
You asked who created the picture and where it came from twice to another poster. Stop being lazy and go find out who posted it and/or created it yourself. Confusing to you apparently... and a "expected right wing response". :lamo Yes, only right wingers apparently can sense lazy.

TheNextEra said:
Someone claimed it was a liberal that made it, it is not up to ANYONE else except the person who made the claim to prove it.
Click to expand...
Don't care what "someone" claimed. Karl asked twice, I responded. Still confused?

TheNextEra said:
Your claim of "Do the legwork yourself" belongs to the person who made the ****ing claim in the first place.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim" Do the legwork yourself" I made a statement - there's no claim about it. Again, couldn't give a squirt what someone else claimed. You or Karl or anyone else keeps asking for someone to state who created a picture and where it came from should find out themselves if they're so interested. That way, in Debating 101, they can have the answer already available and make themselves look very smart. In this case, they look very lazy.


Grim17 said:
Are you misinformed, confused, or is this yet another attempt at dishonest political gamesmanship?
Click to expand...

Sounds like partisan baiting to me. The outrage and over reactions is a dead give away.
 
Grim17 said:
This point of contention was based on the post by haymarket, when he introduced Sarah Palin to this thread by comparing that picture to the one on Palin's website targeting congressional districts on a map... A post which by the way, 4 or 5 other liberals have shown their dishonesty by attempting to defend.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of where your argument began. Problem is, Palin was targeting people by name. Here is a the complete version of that graphic:

palin-bullseye-on-giffords.jpg


Now both are in rather bad taste, but I will agree that putting the crosshairs directly on the person's face is worse, while noting that IMHO it is only a matter of degree between the two (here I'm referring to the anti-Walker rally poster that is floating around the net, with "RELOAD" on it).

Now if such a graphic is contained in an unequivocal death threat, as the Twitchy site (and a few others) is trying to infer, then that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. However, we have no evidence at this point to support that.
 
These death threats don't represent all liberals or the "common" liberal person.

These death threats are immature and should be sought out. I wonder if the White House will talk about left-wing terror groups now and warn us :lol:
 
Ockham said:
You asked who created the picture and where it came from twice to another poster. Stop being lazy and go find out who posted it and/or created it yourself. [...]
Click to expand...
Since I was not using the picture as a basis for my argument, why should I? Everyone knows that the person presenting an argument bears the responsibility for veryifying/sourcing any external claims presented. Well, almost everyone, it seems . . . .

As it turns out, Grim was making an ideological argument rather than a factual one, so in that case the use of the picture as a hypothetical is reasonable in my mind (now I might argue against a hypothetical, but at least it is not directly misrepresenting anything).
 
Ockham said:
[...] You or Karl or anyone else keeps asking for someone to state who created a picture and where it came from should find out themselves if they're so interested. That way, in Debating 101, they can have the answer already available and make themselves look very smart. In this case, they look very lazy.
Click to expand...
The illogicality of that post is only surpassed by the hilarity of it mentioning "Debating 101" :lamo
 
Ockham said:
You or Karl or anyone else keeps asking for someone to state who created a picture and where it came from should find out themselves if they're so interested. That way, in Debating 101, they can have the answer already available and make themselves look very smart. In this case, they look very lazy.
Click to expand...

It's not my job to the prove the claims of a partisan hack, it's theirs. Sorry you don't understand debating.
 
digsbe said:
These death threats don't represent all liberals or the "common" liberal person.

These death threats are immature and should be sought out. I wonder if the White House will talk about left-wing terror groups now and warn us :lol:
Click to expand...
Immature is an excellent description. Of course they should be tracked down and dealt with in some matter; such intimidating stuff makes for poor jokes, assuming they were joking.
 
Karl said:
Yes, I'm aware of where your argument began. Problem is, Palin was targeting people by name. Here is a the complete version of that graphic:

palin-bullseye-on-giffords.jpg


Now both are in rather bad taste, but I will agree that putting the crosshairs directly on the person's face is worse, while noting that IMHO it is only a matter of degree between the two (here I'm referring to the anti-Walker rally poster that is floating around the net, with "RELOAD" on it).

Now if such a graphic is contained in an unequivocal death threat, as the Twitchy site (and a few others) is trying to infer, then that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. However, we have no evidence at this point to support that.
Click to expand...

Actually, when you went to Palin's website, this is the graphic that was displayed:

map1.jpg

Notice what it says at the top of the graphic?

When you clicked it, you got the map along with the list of candidates that were deemed the 20 candidates who needed to be defeated in the upcoming election.
 
Grim17 said:
So what you're saying is, post #4 by haymarket, came before post #3 by sawyerloggingon... Interesting logic there.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm saying #4 came before #19.
 
Grim17 said:
Actually, when you went to Palin's website, this is the graphic that was displayed:

View attachment 67128869

Notice what it says at the top of the graphic?

When you clicked it, you got the map along with the list of candidates that were deemed the 20 candidates who needed to be defeated in the upcoming election.
Click to expand...
To be honest, that looks even more intimidating. "prescribe the solution [crosshairs all over the map]... click for a list of candidates"
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Immature is an excellent description. Of course they should be tracked down and dealt with in some matter; such intimidating stuff makes for poor jokes, assuming they were joking.
Click to expand...

I think most were joking and that it was a result of rage after the election. Many people felt very passionately about the recall effort. I'm not saying this is an excuse for their actions or that they shouldn't be investigated, but I do have a hard time believing that these are legitimate threats with the intent of seeing another person murdered.
 
Karl said:
To be honest, that looks even more intimidating. "prescribe the solution [crosshairs all over the map]... click for a list of candidates"
Click to expand...

And there you've hit on it... "crosshairs all over the map"... And don't bother reading those words at the top, because they can be a real buzz-kill for dishonest, political opportunists.

Now compare that map, to the crosshairs on the head of a human being through the scope of a rifle... Now you can either be honest, or political... Your choice.
 
YoungConserv said:
Who wants to bet that holder won't do anything on this ?
Click to expand...

Beyond a basic investigation on the state level, I hope they don't do anything about this.

This is one of the issues with Twitter. You're giving a whole mass of idiots the ability to instantly put their unfiltered and emotional filled thoughts out into the world to see at a moments notice. Every single person on this forum at some point has had a split second reaction to something that made them think or say to themselves a horrible and awful thing that they know full well they don't actually mean or wouldn't legitimately say. Twitter gives idiots hte ability to have that thought and put it down in words instead of just have it go through their head.

People up in Boston were tossing around the N-Word and saying they needed to hang Joel Ward of the Capitals after he scored and overtime goal. I don't think any of them need to be investigated for actually attempting to go hang the guy though because the reality is it was a bunch of dumbasses who don't quite understand the ramificatoins and etiquette for twitter posting sutpid jerk knee reactions. Same thing here. Treating this serious enough to warrant anything but a cursory glance is ridiculous imho
 
Your Star said:
When it's my side it's nothing but crazy lone nuts, but when it's the other side it's their average membership!!! This proves that they are horrible people!!!!

Give me a ****ing break.
Click to expand...

I know just how you feel. We had people still as of the past few months coming on and using hte Arizona shooting to attack and blame hte tea party. Poeple are ridiculous in their use of this kind of stuff for political fodder
 
Grim17 said:
Because one was targeting a congressional district for defeat in an upcoming an election, and the other was targeting a human being through the scope of a sniper rifle.

When you accompany that image with the death threats made against Scott Walker, that is highly inappropriate and is an implied threat of violence... While the targeting of a congressional district for an election, not accompanied by any threats of violence, does not in any way, shape, or form imply violent intent.

It's hilarious to watch you and other libs abandon common sense to serve your political gods.
Click to expand...

Well, the other difference is that one was made - if it was made at all - by some anonymous lowlife who's political leanings are unknown. The other was made by a woman who, had you had your way, would be a heart attack away from being President of the United States. So you are right, there really is no comparison.

Still awaiting the link to your thread where you expressed outrage at thousands of death threats made against the President by 'conservatives'.
 
Grim17 said:
Umm, no I'm not... I'm saying there is a huge difference between a target on a map for an upcoming election, and a target from the scope of a sniper rifle centered on the head of an actual, living human being...

Think "Common sense" instead of political gamesmanship.
Click to expand...

And your outrage over the threats to the President is where, again? Hypocrisy is such an amusing flaw.
 
digsbe said:
These death threats don't represent all liberals or the "common" liberal person.

:
Click to expand...

Not according to Sawyer.

(Edited to reflect the correct Far Right author).
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
And your outrage over the threats to the President is where, again? Hypocrisy is such an amusing flaw.
Click to expand...

You will find them side by side with the outrage I've shown over these death threats.

(hint - remember the old saying about people who assume?)
 
Zyphlin said:
I know just how you feel. We had people still as of the past few months coming on and using hte Arizona shooting to attack and blame hte tea party. Poeple are ridiculous in their use of this kind of stuff for political fodder
Click to expand...

It was those folks showing up at tea party rallies with assualt rifles that had us all confused.
 
Wiggen said:
Not according to Grim.
Click to expand...

Well... How about you back that up with a link to the post confirming that?

Then when you discover you have been busted lying, a retraction would be the honest thing to do.
 
Grim17 said:
You will find them side by side with the outrage I've shown over these death threats.

(hint - remember the old saying about people who assume?)
Click to expand...

I've seen nothing so far. But, can we now assume that conservatives are to blame for all of those death threats against the President, just as Sawyer claims liberals are responsible for whatever death threats Walker received? Or does it only go one way?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom