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.

So we've all seen the horrors of school girls having acid thrown in their faces for "not knowing their place" and daring to go to school. Now at least one GOP campaign spokesmen thinks that is an acceptable tactic here for women in politics that don't agree with him and his candidate's political positions. What assault on democracy here at home will the GOP cook up next?

And while you're at the link below check out the video "Most Clueless Republican Quotes On Abortion" near the bottom of the page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/03/jay-townsend-gop-spokesma_n_1566519.html?1338827696&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Jay Townsend, campaign spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.), has resigned after writing a Facebook comment calling for supporters to "hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."

I'm changing the title of this thread to reflect the reality of the story. ~Manchu

Apparently he claims his comments were 'easily misconstrued'.
That might happen if you advocate violence...

Just to be clear, this guy is not literally advocating disfiguring women with acid. Mr. Townsend himself admitted that his words could be easily misconstrued; but we shouldn't treat the misconstrued meaning for the intended one. As near as I can tell, the post was intended to emphasize what he perceived as the hypocritical positions of Democrats. All this "acid throwing is not a joke" whinging is totally beside the point and is just partisan attack rather than meaningful commentary.

Eh, on one hand I would've never taken these words to mean what some people made them sound like (imho "some" makes a small but important difference between the two interpretations).

On the other hand, these guys really should be more careful how they are wording their statements. I still recall that campaign where they've put gunsights on various Democrats. Then one got shot for real.
Even worse than that act was the blatantly stupid excuses they made in the attempt to weasel themselves out of that one.

This case here would seem to fall into the lack-of-foresight camp rather than intentional provocation, though.

Lynata wrote:E

On the other hand, these guys really should be more careful how they are wording their statements. I still recall that campaign where they've put gunsights on various Democrats. Then one got shot for real.

How sure are you of that ad campaign and can you post a link?

Lynata wrote:

This case here would seem to fall into the lack-of-foresight camp

Par for the course...

AustonT wrote:How sure are you of that ad campaign and can you post a link?

It was pretty big in the news back then - big enough to make it over the pond.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

One example from google - just search for "Palin" and "gunsights" and there's plenty more tho.

[edit]One more that also talks about the assassination attempt:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027918-503544.html

Another edit - this one is even "better":
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/06/jesse-kelly-event-is-this-wording-intentional.html

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:How sure are you of that ad campaign and can you post a link?

It was pretty big in the news back then - big enough to make it over the pond.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

One example from google - just search for "Palin" and "gunsights" and there's plenty more tho.

[edit]One more that also talks about the assassination attempt:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027918-503544.html

Another edit - this one is even "better":
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/06/jesse-kelly-event-is-this-wording-intentional.html

Your statement is a misrepresentation of the image.
This

Is not what I expected. I expected this

Which is uncalled for. Crosshairs on a map are a far cry from "put(ting) gunsights on various Democrats"

Not much of a far cry. But isn't it kind of sad that I'm already missing the Republican primaries? Sure they were a joke half the time, but at least they were OCCASIONALLY forced to stand up for what they believed in isntead of just attacking the other side.

AustonT wrote:Crosshairs on a map are a far cry from "put(ting) gunsights on various Democrats"

Is it? The map references 20 persons, not locations.

The language from Kelly is even stronger, though.


Both of these cases are pretty obvious to me, but of course I realize that people may reach different conclusions. That's the whole point of these games, after all - abusing the language for an entertaining and provocating gag whilst simultaneously hiding behind the "that's not what I meant" excuse. Fortunately, most of the time, people like Ms. Giffords aren't shot in the head in what looks like someone taking these appeals literal.

I don't think political candidates could get away with such rhetoric in Germany or Ireland. People just wouldn't think it's funny.

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:Crosshairs on a map are a far cry from "put(ting) gunsights on various Democrats"

Is it? The map references 20 persons, not locations.

The language from Kelly is even stronger, though.


Both of these cases are pretty obvious to me, but of course I realize that people may reach different conclusions. That's the whole point of these games, after all - abusing the language for an entertaining and provocating gag whilst simultaneously hiding behind the "that's not what I meant" excuse. Fortunately, most of the time, people like Ms. Giffords aren't shot in the head in what looks like someone taking these appeals literal.

I don't think political candidates could get away with such rhetoric in Germany or Ireland. People just wouldn't think it's funny.

It was a campaign event held at a gun range. Perhaps it was related to him playing to his support from gun owners and his military background: weird.

In any event you are attempting to put more emphasis on campaign ads and events taken out of context and attempting to relate them to event that happened after the fact. Welcome to our state even the babies have guns.

Clearly they want Santa to die.

AustonT wrote:In any event you are attempting to put more emphasis on campaign ads and events taken out of context and attempting to relate them to event that happened after the fact.

Don't I put them into context when I say that the assassin merely followed these appeals? Do you believe it was not intentional that the victim's name was used in direct connection with the words "remove from office" and "shoot a fully automatic M16"?

Again, I'm not saying they wanted this to happen, but this choice of words is not an accident but simply a bad taste in jokes. Very, very bad taste.

Let's not argue about it, though.

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:In any event you are attempting to put more emphasis on campaign ads and events taken out of context and attempting to relate them to event that happened after the fact.

Don't I put them into context when I say that the assassin merely followed these appeals? Do you believe it was not intentional that the victim's name was used in direct connection with the words "remove from office" and "shoot a fully automatic M16"?

Again, I'm not saying they wanted this to happen, but this choice of words is not an accident but simply a bad taste in jokes. Very, very bad taste.

Let's not argue about it, though.

It's not a joke. It's not even a campaign ad, it's an announcement based on the simple Who What Where When Why format. Watch
Event:Get on Target for Victory in November.
Who: Jesse Kelley
What: Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelley
Where: not stated
When: Sat, 6/12/10, 10:00 A.M.
Why: Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from Office.

Your bias is reading sinister intent where there is none.

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:In any event you are attempting to put more emphasis on campaign ads and events taken out of context and attempting to relate them to event that happened after the fact.

Don't I put them into context when I say that the assassin merely followed these appeals? Do you believe it was not intentional that the victim's name was used in direct connection with the words "remove from office" and "shoot a fully automatic M16"?

No, you don't put it into context, because the assassin was a flying rodent gak crazy maniac. Does anyone really think some stupid campaign ad is what drove him over the edge? Yes, I'm sure everything would have been fine if he hadn't viewed a map with a few simple crosshairs on it, but after seeing such a blatant call to violence he decided to start shooting politicians. The campaign ad made him do it!

Hordini wrote:
No, you don't put it into context, because the assassin was a flying rodent gak crazy maniac. Does anyone really think some stupid campaign ad is what drove him over the edge? Yes, I'm sure everything would have been fine if he hadn't viewed a map with a few simple crosshairs on it, but after seeing such a blatant call to violence he decided to start shooting politicians. The campaign ad made him do it!

Not meeting her in 2007 and carrying some sort of murderous vendetta for 4 years.

Hordini wrote:

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:In any event you are attempting to put more emphasis on campaign ads and events taken out of context and attempting to relate them to event that happened after the fact.

Don't I put them into context when I say that the assassin merely followed these appeals? Do you believe it was not intentional that the victim's name was used in direct connection with the words "remove from office" and "shoot a fully automatic M16"?

No, you don't put it into context, because the assassin was a flying rodent gak crazy maniac. Does anyone really think some stupid campaign ad is what drove him over the edge? Yes, I'm sure everything would have been fine if he hadn't viewed a map with a few simple crosshairs on it, but after seeing such a blatant call to violence he decided to start shooting politicians. The campaign ad made him do it!

The campaign ad is in bad taste (not unusal). However the sane people are expected to show some common sense and responsibility not do/say things that provoke the "bastshit crazy maniacs" who might ALSO be their dedicated followers/supporters to act or feel justified in doing so.

You don't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you shouldnt (jokingly or not) hint at want people to assinating public officials.

Throwing acid in people's faces is wrong. If a politician suggest this, even jokingly, it shows he has poor judgment and taste. Judgment and taste and important factors in whether or not one is a good politician. The point being, suggesting throwing acid in people's faces makes him probably a horrid person.

SOMEONE OUGHT TO GO THROW ACID IN HIS FACE AND TEACH HIM SUM MANNERS

This is an awesome thread because we have now set a precedent that Dakka Moderation will now start changing the titles of flamebait troll threads. (I don't know what the original title was here, so no offense BS)

AustonT wrote:Is not what I expected. I expected this

Something like this?

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:Is not what I expected. I expected this

Something like this?

Spoiler:

A double standard! Say it isn't so Biccat!

Ouze wrote:This is an awesome thread because we have now set a precedent that Dakka Moderation will now start changing the titles of flamebait troll threads. (I don't know what the original title was here, so no offense BS)

Oh, that isn't new. It's just hard to get to all of them. And you can see the original title in the first few posts.

I was wondering what it was, that IS rather misleading.

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.

States are people, too!

Well, they might as well be; the party's more interested in protecting state's rights than they are interested in protecting the rights of actual people.

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.

So the Dems are advocating violence against entire states! Which is much more evil.

SlaveToDorkness 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.

So the Dems are advocating violence against entire states! Which is much more evil.

OH NOes The Democrats are advocating a second Civil War!!!

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,

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.

sirlynchmob wrote: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.

No, it wasn't.

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.

Yeah I'll call it what it is: bull gak.