Chris Matthews Calls for Assassination of Entire Congress

When Sarah Palin posted a picture of crosshairs there was immediate uproar and after the AZ shooting speculation spread that her rhetoric could have led to it.

Is Sarah Palin responsible for Rep. Gifford Shooting?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c5563d08ed58.png[/atsimg]

But where is the outcry when MSNBC host Chris Matthews posts a picture of a bulls-eye on our nations capital? Well besides the conservative blogs it is nowhere to be found.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e22613d2ebd.png[/atsimg]

Do you smell that? *sniff* *sniff*… I think I smell hypocrisy.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Just WOW! And it says "Fire" on the Right.

That is almost criminal! It has a target, and a command. It is pictorial and verbal.

It could also be considered retaliation for the Democrat Congresswoman.

Keep this archived, in case someone needs it as a defense later! If this isn't criminal then nothing is!

Originally posted by Misoir
When Sarah Palin posted a picture of crosshairs there was immediate uproar and after the AZ shooting speculation spread that her rhetoric could have led to it.

Do you smell that? *sniff* *sniff*… I think I smell hypocrisy.

And you know Matthews understands exactly what he's doing. That the left always gets a pass on their hypocrisy in the MSM.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Really? Could this be libel?

Really?

Tell Matthews to get in line behind Palin and many other Conservatives at the courthouse filing those legal complaints. Wonder if you and many other members here would/could be named in those complaints?

Could happen...we never know.

But the rest of these people and issues are also not the topic of discussion right here, right now and in particular what I was referring to in my post.

The headline "Chris Matthews Calls for Assassination of Entire Congress" is not accurate in any way.
It's disingenuous and predatory, designed to incite and inflame and also to divide. Not mention that it's a lie.

This could easily have been fixed by adding, say, a question mark, should real open and honest discussion have been the point here.

How you say things [i[matters and if we're not getting this by now....

reply to post by Misoir


I'll repeat this because you may have missed it.

A graphic that appears for maybe a few seconds on a political commentary show with a 10:29-minute discussion about an entirely valid topic with an arguably poor tag line is quite different than a graphic that appeared for what? months? on a website accompanied by supporting words and much, much rhetoric in the same vein as the cross-hairs and specific names as targets in those cross-hairs.

Apples and oranges.

In addition? Fire on the right might just mean things are heating up...as in on fire. There's a fire on the right. But we don't appear to be willing to consider that, and I guess the crosshairs don't lead some to being open about either the segment, it's title, or the graphic.

Hey I'm not thrilled they put the crosshairs in there, and if I were the editor that would never have flown, No how no way. But I also realize it just may have been someone's clever way of saying they might now be shooting themselves in the foot too with their infighting about being in charge now (capitol) and the heat that's coming down on them externally. .They set the target/crosshairs on themselves, so to speak.

But whatever. Spent far too much time already on this trivial stuff.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The headline "Chris Matthews Calls for Assassination of Entire Congress" is not accurate in any way.
It's disingenuous and predatory, designed to incite and inflame and also to divide. Not mention that it's a lie.

I think that's the point.

That when the left went spastic all over Gov. Palin and said she and Beck were to blame for the shooting in Arizona, that was disingenuous, predatory, designed to incite and inflame and also to divide and it was a lie. (to use your words). But since the left did it against Palin, the OP is showing that they are hypocrites for not saying the same thing about Chris Matthews when he does something similar to Palin. The OP is showing that the left really didn't care what the truth was, they just wanted to spew but when it is the same thing that is coming out of their side (and Matthews is hard left), they keep their collective mouths shut and are hypocrites.

I could have it wrong .. but that's what I'm getting from the OP.

reply to post by ~Lucidity

In addition? Fire on the right might just mean things are heating up...as in on fire. There's a fire on the right. But we don't appear to be willing to consider that, and I guess the crosshairs don't lead some to being open about either the segment, it's title, or the graphic.

I disagree. The other poster from Palin was not specifically cross hairs. It was a circle with a large cross over it. It "resembled" cross hairs, but it wasn't cross hairs.

This one is specifically detailed cross hairs, and just to make sure there is no misinterpretation, they put a target within the cross hairs, and a command that says "FIRE ON THE RIGHT."

While Palin's could have been interpreted many ways, this one is designed to be impossible to misinterpret. Sure, the commentary was a less specific in nature, but what about people like me that keep the TV muted 90% of the time?

It is Apples and Oranges alright. More like apples and grenades!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

It doesn't count when you're progressive. Only if you're conservative.
S+F

I don't suppose anyone captured, you know, video? Context is important. The picture is titled "fire on the right" - for all we know from that, it could be a commentary on how the right is trying to kill congress members.

Chris Matthews Calls for Assassination of Entire Congress

Yep sounds like a damn good idea!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Oh, hmm. Okay. So it's some other kind of cross on her stuff? To me they're both clearly crosshairs...and both clearly in questionable taste. But hey, they're being talked about, eh?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I posted a link to the video and analyzed it on page 1?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I don't know her staff's intentions, it might be intentional that they look like crosshairs, but if you look at your GPS you will see a similar symbol for zeroing in on any location, it could have been an innocent usage of that symbol. It is more of a universal symbol.

The one from Matthews is very detailed even on its borders to leave no doubt that it is a crosshair of a scope.

.
.
.
I can't find a good pic on the internet, but the GPS functions on my Moto Droid use that exact symbol as waypoints and destination points.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Yes, I'd agree that the one on the Matthews graphic was more detailed. And again, in questionable taste. I don't quite buy that her poster was misinterpreted because what many, like me, view as crosshairs on her chart are such a perfect accompaniment to her constant and consistent gun talk and reload rhetoric. And by the way? I thought they were crosshairs way before the shooting occurred, and in fact, this chart was one of the first things I looked for when I heard, to see if Giffords name was on there. I remembered because it troubled me a lot.

Further, I don't know what any graphic artist might have searched clipart for or created that would have looked so much like crosshairs. Why the cross at all? Why not just a circle or just a dot or even just an X or the simpler, more commonly used bullseye?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Wow. You're like something out of MadTV.

Like a cartoon conservative.

The Hardball segment that this blogging idiot decided to focus on was about how Rightwing "pundits" use gun-centric rhetoric to describe how their followers should deal with Congress, and in that context, the graphic is absolutely appropriate. You (and apparently the mook that originally published this moronic piece) just don't have the intellect to make the obvious and well-established version of graphic-to-subject connection. Normal American readers - ones who graduated from high school anyway - probably laughed at that article. And here you are, making it out to be a serious piece.

Wow. It's like a bit from Saturday Night Live.

That's not Chris Matthews' fault that you don't understand simple and legitimate graphic representation when it relates directly and specifically to a headline story about the ramifications of irresponsible and inappropriate graphic representation related to direct and targeted political exhortation. That's your fault. It's not a sin to be ignorant, but it doesn't help clarify anything either.

I have to see if I understand the point being made here.

Sarah Palin and her ilk kept repeating lines about guns, targeting, taking out, 2nd amendment remedies, etc. etc. plus had a graphic people did not like. From ALL THAT she was assigned some blame for creating an atmospher.

Chris Mathews and an out of context image on a screen is the same thing? Are these really equivelant or is our OP really grabbing at straws here? There is also the fact that all the things Palin said and showed when in context, were exactly the same. Yet this, in context is completely different than the OP states it?

There is also the fact that I never blamed Palin and I do remember the OP defending her so that would make me in just the right spot to yell hypocrite here. Pick a "logic" and stick to it.

I been calling for the same thing for years taking it one notch higher. The absolute eradication of every iluminatti bloodline on the planet is where I would start. Then outlaw greed,

Walking fox

I don't suppose anyone captured, you know, video? Context is important. The picture is titled "fire on the right" - for all we know from that, it could be a commentary on how the right is trying to kill congress members.

That's an exellent point.

SnF

I'm waiting for some moonbat to actually come out and claim the target logo is not the same as crosshairs.

If some crazy lunatic takes him up on it and shoots a member of Congress, Palin will get the blame, again.

reply to post by ziggystrange


I have had it with Chris Matthews. He gets crazier every day. This imagery is out of line. He needs to apologize, and do it now.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I have to see if I understand the point being made here.

We'll wait for you since it could take awhile.

Sarah Palin and her ilk kept repeating lines about guns, targeting, taking out, 2nd amendment remedies, etc. etc. plus had a graphic people did not like. From ALL THAT she was assigned some blame for creating an atmospher.

You forgot the word "falsely" as in "she was falsely assigned some blame ". Probably just an oversight, right?

Chris Mathews and an out of context image on a screen is the same thing?

No, what Matthews did is actually much worse, because he did it knowing exactly how it would be perceived and did it AFTER obama called for civility.

Are these really equivelant or is our OP really grabbing at straws here? There is also the fact that all the things Palin said and showed when in context, were exactly the same. Yet this, in context is completely different than the OP states it?

Perhaps only in your mind and that of (the not so) Lucidity?

There is also the fact that I never blamed Palin and I do remember the OP defending her so that would make me in just the right spot to yell hypocrite here. Pick a "logic" and stick to it.

And apparently only in your mind would saying that "Sarah Palin and her ilk kept repeating lines about guns, targeting, taking out, 2nd amendment remedies, etc. etc. plus had a graphic people did not like. From ALL THAT she was assigned some blame" is not assigning blame BY YOU.

We all know what you meant - even if you choose to pretend you don't.

Chris Matthews should be "shot". He's just trying to grab ratings from the "radicals"... is it sweeps week?