GOP campaign spokesmen references hurling acid at political opponents in facebook gaff

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

and that's why the first thing Palin does after hearing of the attack is take down that picture. she was obviously thinking that her rhetoric could have been part of Loughners motives.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
biccat wrote:
AustonT wrote:Is not what I expected. I expected this

Something like this?

Spoiler:

strange, I don't actually see the caption targetting people. I see it targetting states.

Ah...so when the GOP does it then it's targeting language and violent innuendo. When the Dems use actual targeting language it's just good politics. You don't see the issue there? That bloody amazes me. No, I take it back people being obtuse is nothing new or amazing,

The big difference being, the dems picture didn't inspire anyone to go shoot people. the shooting in arizona was linked to the one Palin put up.

Horse gak. The nutjob was a nut job
http://gawker.com/5844828/arizona-shooter-still-insane-has-imaginary-friends

he did believe he couldn't trust the government , becuase it was enforcing grammar control.

And he adds, "I can't trust the current government because of fabrications. The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/profile-suspect-jared-loughner-i-cant-trust-current-government/

**AustonT**

sirlynchmob wrote:and that's why the first thing Palin does after hearing of the attack is take down that picture. she was obviously thinking that her rhetoric could have been part of Loughners motives.

Oh a campaign had something to do with it but it weren't Sarah Palin. Center-Right (

) publication Mother Jones did an interview:

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a "fake." Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

**sirlynchmob**

AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

Now if someone goes and throws acid into a senators face, would Townsend be directly responsible? indirectly? no responsibility what so ever? What are the odds he said it, hoping he had a Loughner or a Anders listening who would act on it? At least he resigned over it, now if only Knapp would quit or get fired. If you go and promote violence and someone acts on it, IMO you are an accomplice to that crime.

**Ouze**

Melissia wrote:States are people, too!

Did you mean "Corporations"?

So far as Sarah Palin inspiring Loughner, no. There are a great many things to not like about Mrs. Palin, but it's not reasonable to try to assign her the motivations of a crazy person; and that dude is 2 pounds of crazy in a 8oz cup.

**biccat**

sirlynchmob wrote:I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

1. Palin publishes a picture indicating districts that are potential gains.
2. Some nut shoots a congresswoman in one of those districts.
3. Liberal media finds Palin's picture, blames her for the shooting.
4. Liberal media hounds Palin to take down the picture.
5. Palin eventually takes down the picture.
6. Turns out, the nut didn't know about the picture, thought the government was controlling people through grammar, and is in fact pretty left wing.
7. Media continues with anti-Republican diatribe, accuses them of indirectly influencing the nut.

And yet, somehow, this proves Palin's culpability.

**d-usa**

sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

1. Palin publishes a picture indicating districts that are potential gains.
2. Some nut shoots a congresswoman in one of those districts.
3. Liberal media finds Palin's picture, blames her for the shooting.
4. Liberal media hounds Palin to take down the picture.
5. Palin eventually takes down the picture.
6. Turns out, the nut didn't know about the picture, thought the government was controlling people through grammar, and is in fact pretty left wing.
7. Media continues with anti-Republican diatribe, accuses them of indirectly influencing the nut.

And yet, somehow, this proves Palin's culpability.

I knew it would be entertaining. Yes let's not let silly things like facts stand in our way. Go ahead an put another hash on your chalkboard for taking a position not supported by reality. It would have been insensitive to the point of stupidity to allow that image to stand, that doesn't imply a relationship between the campaign and the action. The New York Times tried to make the same argument you are, they were thoroughly trounced by Mother Jones hateful conservative rhetoric exposed the truth's conservative bias. Oh wait...

Look here's Mitt Romney using gun imagery to single out someone off camera for execution.

He has targeted that person with his hateful campaigning.
Here Family North Carolina advocates the murder of this couple

**BrassScorpion**

Good riddance to bad rubbish as "the dumbest political campaign spokesman in history" loses his job.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168228/spokesman-rep-nan-hayworth-resigns-after-hurl-some-acid-female-senators-remark

Spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth Resigns After 'Hurl Some Acid' at Female Senators Remark

Greg Mitchell on June 5, 2012 - 8:42 AM ET

On the fictional HBO comedy show Veep this week the spokesman for the Vice President of the United States got trouble for privately calling a Secret Service agent something of an “ape” but he’s got nothing on the press flack for GOP Rep. Nan Hayworth of upstate New York.

Jay Townsend has now resigned after an uproar over one of his incendiary comments in a Facebook discussion last week, recommending that people should “hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector.” Apparently he believes that those who back the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act are hypocrites.

Hayworth is the freshman Tea Party favorite who unseated Representative John Hall, a liberal Democrat, two years ago. I happened to know Hall back in the 1970s when he headed the popular rock group Orleans and wrote for my magazine, Crawdaddy.

Townsend—who had the honor of getting trounced 2-1 by Chuck Schumer in a 2010 US Senate race—had issued the usual no-apology apology, claiming his words were simply taken the wrong way: “It was stupid because my words were easily misconstrued; thoughtless because my choice of words obscured a point I was trying to make, and insensitive because some have interpreted the comment as advocating a violent act.” Hayworth’s campaign manager had called it simply a “manufactured” controversy.

The web site Wonkeltte has had some fun with it all, calling Townsend “the dumbest political campaign spokesman in history,” adding, “Townsend will now focus his efforts on chemically maiming liberal women in the private sector.”

I’ve found Townsend’s personal website where he is selling an e-book and audio tapes with this promo: “The Ten Worst Mistakes Candidates Make. Real Stories from the Campaign Trail of Dumb Stunts that Derailed Otherwise Good Candidates. Learn from their Mistakes.”

It also promotes his paid appearances as a speaker: “Looking for an entertaining, informative or engaging speaker…someone to motivate your group to fight for the conservative cause…a veteran of more than 300 political campaigns who can regale an audience with stories from the campaign trail, battles won and lost, commentary on the state of American politics and what it portends? Book Jay Townsend as your next Lunch or Dinner Speaker.”

One of his posts there is titled, “Are Middle-Class Whites Fleeing Obama’s Plantation?”

Four Democrats are competing to run against her: Sean Patrick Maloney, an aide to former Governor Eliot Spitzer; Mayor Tom Wilson of Tuxedo Park; Dr. Rich Becker, councilman in Cortlandt; and Mayor Matt Alexander of Wappingers Falls.

**Ahtman**

AustonT wrote:Look here's Mitt Romney using gun imagery to single out someone off camera for execution.

He's probably probably about to shoot a poor person, because you know how he hates poor people. Still, you have to be careful with those things, someone might get hurt.

**d-usa**

Ahtman wrote:
AustonT wrote:Look here's Mitt Romney using gun imagery to single out someone off camera for execution.

He's probably probably about to shoot a poor person, because you know how he hates poor people. Still, you have to be careful with those things, someone might get hurt.

For a Republican he also shows very poor gun safety skills.

That middle finger is clearly on the trigger. Never keep your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to destroy something.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
AustonT wrote:Look here's Mitt Romney using gun imagery to single out someone off camera for execution.

He's probably probably about to shoot a poor person, because you know how he hates poor people. Still, you have to be careful with those things, someone might get hurt.

No thats not it. He pays people for that.

**streamdragon**

AustonT wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
biccat wrote:
AustonT wrote:This

Spoiler:

Is not what I expected. I expected this

Spoiler:

Which is uncalled for. Crosshairs on a map are a far cry from "put(ting) gunsights on various Democrats" Is not what I expected. I expected this

Something like this?

Spoiler:

strange, I don't actually see the caption targetting people. I see it targetting states.

Ah...so when the GOP does it then it's targeting language and violent innuendo. When the Dems use actual targeting language it's just good politics. You don't see the issue there? That bloody amazes me. No, I take it back people being obtuse is nothing new or amazing,

First off, calm yourself. I said nothing of the sort that you are suggesting I did. I do find your allegation of "people being obtuse" hilarious though, considering whom it is that I have quoted.

Your own post shows that you expected images of persons being specifically targetted. You then provide two examples: Obama in the first, Bush in the second.

Biccat then responds by suggesting that his image is more along the lines of what you expected. However his image, like the one from your post that "is not what [you] expected", shows targets on a map, not on specific persons.

My post points out this discrepancy.

Then you jump on my back and try to shove words in my mouth.

Edit: Added the full text of the first quote in this chain, for full context.

**sirlynchmob**

d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

So its only in poor taste after someone gets shot?

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

So its only in poor taste after someone gets shot?

Yep, or are you virginal in never actually looking at the internet and seeing target icons for a whole list of things...like map programs or simple click icons. Seriously....

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

So its only in poor taste after someone gets shot?

Yep, or are you virginal in never actually looking at the internet and seeing target icons for a whole list of things...like map programs or simple click icons. Seriously....

wow, what kind of hate groups are you part of where everyone is being targeted? or are you to ignorant to see the difference between real people and computer icons?

**streamdragon**

... I'm not even sure you know what you're saying at this point.

**d-usa**

sirlynchmob wrote:
d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

So its only in poor taste after someone gets shot?

Pretty much.

It can also be poor taste before somebody gets shot, I don't think it was the smartest analogy do use to begin with. But I can see how targeting certain offices to focus on can be signified by targets without any bad intent.

But there is a difference between "They are using targets, they want people to get shot" hyperbole, and "They are using targets and one of them is a person that just got shot" insensitivity.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:

I'm prepared to watch you attempt to draw some sort of line between a campaign ad run in 2009 at the earliest and a years long vendetta stemming from a 2007 campaign event.

I don't need to, the republicans made that connection immediately after the shooting, that's why they took the picture down. If those campaign posters of cross hairs are so benign, then we should see them again this year for the elections right?

I think they took it down because they realize that using pictures of crosshairs/targets over their political opponents AFTER a politician gets shot is in extremely poor taste. I don't think they took it down because they thought that the picture caused the shooting.

So its only in poor taste after someone gets shot?

Yep, or are you virginal in never actually looking at the internet and seeing target icons for a whole list of things...like map programs or simple click icons. Seriously....

Well under your definition, anything with two crossed lines is a "target." thats a whole lot of icons.

wow, what kind of hate groups are you part of where everyone is being targeted? or are you to ignorant to see the difference between real people and computer icons?

**Lynata**

biccat wrote:Palin publishes a picture indicating districts that are potential gains.

See, the thing is, the map said "20 Democrats".

biccat wrote:Turns out, the nut didn't know about the picture

Is that a fact or an assumption?

Not claiming that this map was in any way responsible, though. As people said, the guy was a nutjob. I do, however, see the potential danger that such appeals have on certain people who aren't completely right in their minds. I'm sure any and all politicians have a number of fanatical followers, and when their idol tells them something like this, then said nutjobs could feel justified, even "divinely inspired" by some politicians that all to often present themselves as saintly saviors in the media lately.

As I said, it's just not something that would be tolerated around here, even without somebody getting hurt. It's as if politicians would wish each other cancer, but they'd do wo with a warm smile because that makes it okay. A development of the recent trend in turning a political race into a mud-throwing contest, no doubt.

**biccat**

Lynata wrote:
biccat wrote:Turns out, the nut didn't know about the picture
Is that a fact or an assumption?

There's no evidence that he knew about the map or had even seen it. Make of that what you will.

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
biccat wrote:Palin publishes a picture indicating districts that are potential gains.
See, the thing is, the map said "20 Democrats".

biccat wrote:Turns out, the nut didn't know about the picture
Is that a fact or an assumption?

It's a fact. Unsurprisingly after the shooting both sides started to try to color the shooter into the other's camp. There was especially an issue between the NY Times which pushed the assumption that the shooter was a fringe right winger with ties to some hate group or another AND was influenced by SaraPAC. Interviews with friends and relatives, and voter registration (FWIW) painted him as a liberal turned bat gak crazy (Independent by registration). When he went BSC he stopped really belonging to anyone. It's inconvenient to point out that he was a young Dem who wasn't fond of Gifford's Blue Dog politics, met with her as a supporter and asked some BSC question that indicated he was already swaying towards instability. There is and was no correlation between SaraPAC and Jared Laughner.

**Lynata**

AustonT wrote:It's a fact.

Source?

[edit] But once more, this isn't the point I was trying to make.

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
AustonT wrote:It's a fact.
Source?

[edit] But once more, this isn't the point I was trying to make.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_3_27/ai_n56904544/?tag=content;col1

**Nicorex**

AMERICA!

Love it or Hate it.. You will still probably get shot.

**d-usa**

Nicorex wrote:AMERICA!

Love it or Hate it.. You will still probably get shot.

Especially if you live in the midwest/south/red states!

**Lynata**

AustonT wrote:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_3_27/ai_n56904544/?tag=content;col1

Nothing in that blog says the guy "didn't know about the picture".

And damn was it hard to read. I've rarely seen so much obviously biased propaganda in such a concentrated form.

Somebody should make a tally sheet for how often terms like "leftist" show up in the text.

**Nicorex**

D...
A) That was funny! I giggled.. well chuckled....

B) I was also a bit offended. Nothing in my post refrences religion or the mis-interpritation of religion and I would kindly ask you to refrain from placing it in or out of contex with any post of mine. We woundnt want you to suffer any needless gunshot wounds.
C) Im kidding. As long as its funny(or at least I find it funny) .. do what ever you want.
D) Actually now that I think about it. I have NO control or anything you do or say. Humm.. Mabye I should call my Congresman and see if he can get some kind of "LAW" set up so I can.
E) I bet this will cost millions in advertizing(and bribes). I guess i better get to work on the Fund-Raising part of my campain.
F) ... better refill my stock..

G) to quote Jackie Gleason :And Away We Go!"

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
AustonT wrote:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_3_27/ai_n56904544/?tag=content;col1
Nothing in that blog says the guy "didn't know about the picture".

And damn was it hard to read. I've rarely seen so much obviously biased propaganda in such a concentrated form.
Somebody should make a tally sheet for how often terms like "leftist" show up in the text.

you don't like mine: find your own.

**Frazzled**

Ooh Ohh I have one!