Uh… What? 
I think what he meant is this:
A scope can have either a crosshair or a bullseye as it’s lining-up item.
But one does not shoot AT a crosshair, only at a bullseye.
Meaning that the bullseye can be inferred in two ways - the sight AND the target.
…not a defense here, merely an elucidation.
One love, TPB, one love.
As I see it.
Once again, you’re not addressing the issue. Pulling a “they did it too!” style response is fucking lazy. Stop being a dumbass.
But that’s just the point: people are being fucking lazy.
Both parties are guilty of this shit - why should just republican retards get grilled for it?
Both parties are trying to lay the blame for el-whack job on the other, too.
And the nutter wasn’t a clear-cut demo or repub, just a clear-cut nutter.
I think that’s all he’s saying.
As I see it.
The sides should stop blaming each other. BOTH sides include a lot of this type of rhetoric and out of hundreds of millions of americans only a couple do this crazy shit. This isn’t exactly a trend.
Acerbic’s point is that the media is only blaming one side when the other side clearly does the same shit. He himself is not blaming or defending either side, he’s just pointing out hypocrisy. I think clu has explained this a couple of times already.
A new forum for culture-war debate: Jared Loughner’s Musical Taste
Whenever the word “tragedy” or “massacre” appears on the media, people just looove blowing shit out of proportion. at least in the article the band (drowing pool) debunks the meaning of the song
Picketing funerals is now legally banned in Arizona.
As much as I dislike the WBC, this is a little disturbing. How is this constitutional?
I’m seeing a lot of this happening right now. Banning state employees from being on talk radio (In RI I believe) and this :Lawmakers consider new curbs on incendiary speech - TheHill.com
Seems like our government is taking advantage of this horrible tragedy so they can take away some more rights (sound familiar?).
Like I said earlier, why let a horrible tragedy go to waste?
So what he’s saying is, I can take my dartboard, put a hole in the bullseye, and look through it to better aim where I’m throwing my dart? I guess. I don’t know. I never really needed help throwing darts at a picture of a crosshair before. But I’ll try it.
Probably isn’t. Could just be a tactic to keep them from the funeral when it happens. Then let it get ruled unconstitutional and be like, “HA WE GOT YOU” before the church sues the state or something.
Yes, that is what I am saying. I’ve dragged up specific examples so there wouldn’t be any confusion.
If someone says “well this sort of stuff is wrong” I agree. It’s not productive at best and it’s childish and risky at worst. But don’t say “this is wrong” and then finger point at the other side when your side is guilty of the same fucking thing down to swapping crosshairs with a bullseye for their targets and then try to explain it away, that’s nonsense.
If you want to place blame, well, how the fuck did someone this disturbed that the Army, schools, and a Walmart all either threw him out or refused to sell him ammunition not end up with a psych eval and either on meds, or therapy, there is the problem.
Finger pointing at the other side over who said what to who, and who put out what chart with what symbols on it is fucking stupid, especially when you know, your chart had a symbol that means the exact same thing floating around.
Some rifle scopes, and other types of sights, have bullseyes instead of crosshairs, it isn’t uncommon at all.
The Young Turks breaking this shit down with both an interview: [media=youtube]gBYnLvqmh0s&feature=sub[/media]
and then a clip from his show: [media=youtube]tyqmZs0VoPw&feature=sub[/media]
littered with far more examples than i could give.
Don’t you SEE?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dart+in+neck&aq=f
If you’d had a sight, then you wouldn’t have shot Will, you would have hit your intended target, ending Sean Willam Scott, and actually be remembered for doing some good, instead of ending America’s Comedic Avalon, ya gatdam Lee Harvey Oswald, you.
Obviously, you’re not a Gordon.
http://www.bullseyecrosshairs.com/hlsites.shtm
As I see it.
I don’t know why I’m bothering with this, but not all sights are reticles, you do know this correct? There are several types.
And yes I left the military as an E-5.
Why are people quibbling over this? Whatever the fuck it is, the intent of its use in the graphic is obvious to anybody who isn’t a dolt or a sophist. Or a politician in the midst of a laughable attempt at damage control, for that matter.
What I find to be the most amusing is that people are arguing over Sarah Palin, and something she did, as if she were in any way relevant, to anything.
And by anything, I do mean anything.
The bitch is literally the Paris Hilton of politics, sans the overrated fucktape.
As I see it.
Shocking though it may be, there are people who take her seriously. That fact must be taken seriously even by the people who don’t take Palin herself seriously.
People take her seriously because the media takes her seriously. Nobody that actually controls anything thinks she’s anything more than a blithering idiot. The media only takes her seriously because it drives up ratings.
Sure, she can rally up a pack of fools. But the entire 2008 election was about two no name, no experience, dolts who rallied up fools based off “vote for the black guy, end racism, he gave a great speech!” vs “get a woman in the white house, she’s hot, and a real American”. Only one came out with any power and has since bungled the job.
That normally, never happens. The parties are rarely stupid enough to run “noname XXX, but hey, has a cool angle”, and we won’t see it in 2012. The Republican elite know she can’t win and know she’s toxic. My bet is they’ll make sure she doesn’t even enter the primary and if she does it will be a gigantic dogpile to take her out ASAP. It’s already started, she’s done.
She’s only as relevant as any other Fox News commentator now, with a splash of reality TV star (and who the fuck shoots at an elk with a .22 and then can’t hit it, christ), not good material.
My money is it will be the Huckster or Romney. Huck is scary in his own way, Romney I’d vote for.
yeah bottom line is, blame falls squarely on the gunman.
i do notice conservatives are more vitriolic in their rhetoric, because guys like rush limbaugh pander to the lowest common denominator of dumb, gun totin’, flag wavin, religious hicks. vitriol sells. it resonates with hicks. why else would sarah palin be as successful as she is? whereas ive never really had any problem with violent liberal rhetoric. so i think the conservatives do need to STFU and tone that shit down, because who knows how many stupid followers of theirs won’t exercise sound judgement? i mean, do you trust someone dumb enough to support sarah palin, to not go shoot up a bunch of liberals? i sure as hell don’t.
So many falsehoods here…
How? Obama called to bring guns to the knife fight. The DCCC/DLC (that’s the entire parties leadership, not just one moron) put bullseyes on their opponents. Rahm, you know the white house chief of staff, is on record for sending dead fish to political opponents and stabbing knives into tables screaming “dead”. Manchin in West Virginia released videos of him shooting a bill to kill it, Jim Webb is on record for having an aid smuggle an illegal firearm into the fucking capitol building, along with debating punching the president.
Just how are conservatives more vitriolic? The answer they aren’t. This sort of bullshit happens on both sides of the fence, and that’s the entire fucking problem here. However the media mantra of “brave, gun owning, patriotic conservatives” and “wimpy, elitist, latte drinking” liberals, doesn’t allow them to show it.
That’s a portion of the conservative base. I could drag out uneducated, inner city, government tit sucking liberals and it would be worth about as much. It’s just a portion of the base. It does exist yes, but it’s a tempest in a tea pot.
Radical, and even violent, leftist groups are part of our history. If you look at things with a broad lense and get those tinted glasses off for a second you’d realize we’ve had bombings and the like from both sides. Or are you going to just jedi handwave away the violent items from the left or what has been said with “no true liberal”, that’s great, because that’s what the right said about the OK city bombings “no true conservative” it’s bullshit logic.
Well considering she never actually said to I don’t now where that comes from.
As much as I hate Malkin, she has a point here, this is some of what the left has been up to.
Michelle Malkin The progressive ?climate of hate:? An illustrated primer, 2000-2010
Then why the fuck did you jump all into that partisan crap? I don’t blame the left for the dude who watched too much of Gore’s movie for taking the Discovery building hostage, and that’s a proven link, dude was a nut job. And I don’t blame the right for this dude, who’s views were all over the place and there is no link yet (there might be but not yet) to Palin for his bullshit actions.
You can’t have it both ways. Either rhetoric and words have consequences in which both sides are guilty and seriously need to tone the crap down, or lunatics are just lunatics in which case stop the finger pointing for cheap points.