Try and keep up.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...fords-shooting-tea-party-wont-be-silenced.php
Now, lets see you call them "disgusting"
UTTER FAIL....AGAIN!
I'm not unbiased here, but the dem site tries to state that it IS violent rhetoric that caused the shooting and the donate now link is the obvious message, in size and design of the website. So they lie and blatantly try to link this lie to gaining donations. The tea party information states look, there is no tie to us with this shooting, we are under attack for a unrelated event, and BTW, we can use your donations. They state facts and then a little more subtle reminder that they need donations to exist. Neither pretty but I think the dem site is further over the disgust line.
But do you think it is disgusting regardless who does it
Do you? Please answer your own question, pard.
But do you think it is disgusting regardless who does it
But do you think it is disgusting regardless who does it
I would have to say SPN put it best, but without a doubt the 21st Century Dims seem to definately be more over the top. But both are a little crass at the very least and out and out fortuitous. But that is just me.
Ask him. He was the one who used that adjective to describe this behavior. I would have used something else.
First of all, you didnt answer the question.
Was what this tea party group did disgusting or not?
Stop hiding behind SPN's skirt!
Secondly, your source claims that Daily Kos used the same violent imagery as Palin and Giffords opponent. Not true and a blatant lie.
Yes, daily Kos had a bullseye on Giffords specifically. It was posted on a previous thread. And CRH was very clear in his feeling that both groups were crass. I think you might have some reading comprehension issues this morning.
Yes, daily Kos had a bullseye on Giffords specifically. It was posted on a previous thread. And CRH was very clear in his feeling that both groups were crass. I think you might have some reading comprehension issues this morning.
Let me be clear for you puddin. I don't think any person, group, or organization should be trying to fund raise off of this tragedy. I don't think any person, group or organization should try to gain political advantage off of this tragedy.
I don't think politicians should be trying to use the image of a dead 9 year old girl to try to silence their political opponents. I think it smacks of the cynicism they purport to condemn.
But, you have yet to tell us your position on the topic, probably because you DO support it.
Look up the term photoshop and what that means.
My, how you are easily fooled and manipulated.
It was a LIE'
So that means you wont be supporting pro-life groups using pictures of fetus' and ones in jars at anti-abortion rallies?
He has to define what the limits are of the adjective HE chose in describing this groups fund raising efforts, which he has yet to do.
And as far as you're concerned, you lose the luxury of demanding answers when you cut n run from proving answers to your "facts" from a previous thread.
Thats how it works Puddin, so you can only guess my feelings about this at this point.
You cannot possibly be that dense. The stories have been very clear that the arrow and bullseye are added - but read the text, see the "incendiary" words of placing a bullseye on the blue dog dems, bolding their names for targeting. You can absolutely NEVER admit the left's errors.
http://www.examiner.com/post-partis...daily-kos-put-bullseye-on-dead-to-me-giffords
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...-kos-put-a-bulls-eye-on-rep-giffords-in-2008/
So that means you wont be supporting pro-life groups using pictures of fetus' and ones in jars at anti-abortion rallies?
He has to define what the limits are of the adjective HE chose in describing this groups fund raising efforts, which he has yet to do.
And as far as you're concerned, you lose the luxury of demanding answers when you cut n run from proving answers to your "facts" from a previous thread.
Thats how it works Puddin, so you can only guess my feelings about this at this point.