PDA

View Full Version : More MSNBC hate speech!



LWW
01-26-2011, 02:14 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/TTlDOkCaqzI/AAAAAAAAO04/og970w5cJF4/s400/target.JPG

Chris Matthews puts a target on the <s>traitors</s> <s>enemies of the state</s> <s>enemies of the people</s> new congress while calling upon his moonbat crazy leftist followers to "FIRE ON THE RIGHT" ... and yet I haven't heard a single leftist lament such thug like behavior.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 05:14 PM
How about a conservative excusing it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> #15 This may shock and surprise

Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 2:52pm.

This may shock and surprise some of my fellow conservatives but I have to give Matthews some slack and the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I worked 10 years in local television news and am familiar with how OTS grahics (a.k.a. - box graphics) are normally requested, produce and aired. In most all instances the on-air talent is the last one to see it and it's usually well after the fact. Most of the time well before the airing of the show the producer or asst. producer will give the graphics person a run-down of all the OTS graphics needed for broadcast with the story slug of each (sometimes with the script itself). In some instance, depending upon the process, the producer may give instructions on what the graphic should be but often it's left in the hands of the graphics person to come up with the graphic based upon the story slug and/or script. This will be stored in a computer which synchs up the graphics with the scripts.

I seriously doubt Matthews had any foreknowledge of the graphic and probably didn't see it beforehand. He may have glanced it on a side or desk monitor while he was reading it but I figure he saw it afterwards and may have raised hell over it later. Maybe the executive producer raised hell about it afterwards.

Normally there are multiple levels where an objectionable or flawed graphic can be removed or altered before and even during the show, but once that graphic airs, it's too late. The last line of defense rests with the technical director who should have seen the graphic in "preview" just before it would be visible to the viewer and if they were up-to-speed on the controversy AND quick-thinking could and should have made the shot a close-up while still in "preview" so when they went to camera, the OTS wouldn't have appeared. He could have explained his choice later IF anyone at MSNBC raised a fuss.

So although there is literally a myriad of possibilities of why this graphic was created and how it got on-air, I have my doubts that it was intentional and I really doubt that Matthews had anything to do with it.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...a#ixzz1CBaod2rf (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/21/chris-matthews-displays-graphic-image-target-capitol-building-crossha#ixzz1CBaod2rf)
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 05:21 PM
To be clear, LWW does NOT find such graphics or language objectionable when it comes from his side, from what I've read of his posts. (Which is fairly much how the left treats the same language style from their side as well.)

Now, as to what this graphic implies, it's shooting up the right side of the cupola, which would endanger either no one or perhaps equally the right and the left in that building, except that the required weaponry (pretty heavy artillery, to make much of a dent) is not in the hands of the people at large.

This is the same as 'targets' on STATES, unless nuclear weaponry was available to the public.

pooltchr
01-26-2011, 05:54 PM
Are you suggesting that while a new anchor has nothing to do with the graphics used on his show, Sarah Palin was personally responsible for the use of surveyer graphics on a poster?

Does she have any background in graphic publishing?

Or are you able to see how crazy it is to blame someone for something so trivial when they support your views, but fail to see it when the person in question is on the other side?

Steve

LWW
01-26-2011, 06:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be clear, LWW does NOT find such graphics or language objectionable when it comes from his side, from what I've read of his posts. (Which is fairly much how the left treats the same language style from their side as well.)

Now, as to what this graphic implies, it's shooting up the right side of the cupola, which would endanger either no one or perhaps equally the right and the left in that building, except that the required weaponry (pretty heavy artillery, to make much of a dent) is not in the hands of the people at large.

This is the same as 'targets' on STATES, unless nuclear weaponry was available to the public. </div></div>

Actually I don't find it offensive from either side.

What I did ... look straight up over your head for a glimpse ... was point out the absurdity of the moonbat crazy left's position by applying it to a moonbat crazy leftist's actions.

As always, a leftist rushes forward to attack the bearer of the message and to defend the hater.

LWW

LWW
01-26-2011, 06:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that while a new anchor has nothing to do with the graphics used on his show, Sarah Palin was personally responsible for the use of surveyer graphics on a poster?

Does she have any background in graphic publishing?

Or are you able to see how crazy it is to blame someone for something so trivial when they support your views, but fail to see it when the person in question is on the other side?

Steve </div></div>

What he's suggesting is that whatever MSNBC spoon feeds him is what he will accept as "TRUTH" on the matter.

LWW

Qtec
01-26-2011, 06:17 PM
LOL. This is a joke, right?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">while calling upon his moonbat crazy leftist followers to "FIRE ON THE RIGHT" </div></div>

Prove it. Where is the quote?

link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/21/chris-matthews-displays-graphic-image-target-capitol-building-crossha#ixzz1CBaod2rf)

IMO the caption reflected the topic exactly. RW politicians using crosshairs and gun analogies in politics.

"don't retreat, reload."

Q

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that while a new anchor has nothing to do with the graphics used on his show, Sarah Palin was personally responsible for the use of surveyer graphics on a poster?

Does she have any background in graphic publishing?

Or are you able to see how crazy it is to blame someone for something so trivial when they support your views, but fail to see it when the person in question is on the other side?

Steve </div></div>

Unlike Matthews, who isn't the owner of his show, doesn't do the tech work, and might not have had even a barest brief glimpse of this graphic, Ms. Palin owned her takebackthe20.com site, and herself bought everything there, and the thing sat up there in public view where she could see it for many months. So, of course she has a far greater responsibility for enduring things on her own website than Matthews' does for fleeting images put up by others that he may not have even seen.

But the graphic isn't the whole point here-- it was the graphic in combination with the WORDS-- Ms. Palin's own rhetoric.

Did Matthews SAY anything like what the image is said to mean?

Wholly different situation when looked at in its entirety.

And again, inciting violence against the outside of buildings is non-partisan.

Stretch
01-26-2011, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that while a new anchor has nothing to do with the graphics used on his show, Sarah Palin was personally responsible for the use of surveyer graphics on a poster?

Does she have any background in graphic publishing?

Or are you able to see how crazy it is to blame someone for something so trivial when they support your views, but fail to see it when the person in question is on the other side?

Steve </div></div>

What he's suggesting is that whatever MSNBC spoon feeds him is what he will accept as "TRUTH" on the matter.

LWW </div></div>

Snap favoured you with a plausible explination and a polite difference of oppinion. All you can come back with is the same boiler plate RW crap that is the standard reply to any and all difference of opinion. This leads me to beleive that you are not at all interested in "discussion" as you claim and your constant belly aicking about the silence of the left, or where is the outrage is laughable. Truth is, knowone gives a rats ass about what you think anymore except for your adoring syncophants, all two of them. You were tuned out a long time ago.

Snap is a smart fellow, i tryed to warn him about your dishonest approach to discussing issues but i'm sure he has his reasons. St.

eg8r
01-26-2011, 09:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be clear, LWW does NOT find such graphics or language objectionable when it comes from his side, from what I've read of his posts. (Which is fairly much how the left treats the same language style from their side as well.)
</div></div>I don't either, but what I think he is doing is saying, "Look at the lefties pitching a stink over Palin for doing the very same thing the Dems are doing. Come on Dems at least have the decency to show some semblance of equality."

I personally don't see an issue with the targets because a thinking person understands the point. My issue is with the Dems fabricating absolute lies about Giffords shooting being the cause of Palin's graphic but then not saying anything about the Dems doing the same thing.

eg8r

LWW
01-27-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that while a new anchor has nothing to do with the graphics used on his show, Sarah Palin was personally responsible for the use of surveyer graphics on a poster?

Does she have any background in graphic publishing?

Or are you able to see how crazy it is to blame someone for something so trivial when they support your views, but fail to see it when the person in question is on the other side?

Steve </div></div>

Unlike Matthews, who isn't the owner of his show, doesn't do the tech work, and blah blah blah blah I must defend MSNBC blah blah blah blah I must defend the left blah blah blah blah I must blame someone else blah blah blah blah </div></div>

Please read the thread title.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 01:10 AM
Your logic is that of a Moebius strip, seamlessly taking the opposite position you just took when it suits you.

You have clarified that you do NOT find any of these targeting metaphors to be hate speech, and so when you claim those whom you think are 'leftists' are engaging in just that thing, you don't mean it, and are simply tweaking the left with the tu quoque jibe.

Fair enough, but stick with it. You write as if you DO find these things hate speech, but only when it comes from the leftward side as you see it.

There comes a point, and it is well recognized, that differences in DEGREE become differences in KIND. When simple metaphoric references to our violence-soaked society's language of attack and destroy which I agree are commonplace rise to the level of incitement to violence.

Where that line rests is a matter of opinion. But there is such a line, even if it changes according to societal circumstances and atmospherics. Those more on the left think it was crossed in some right side rhetoric, and I agree, given the environment we find ourselves in. You think anything putatively similar must be exactly the same thing, and I think that's wrong.

When you can show me the heavily armed leftists showing up strapped, locked and loaded at their political rallies, talking up violence as the next step if they fail at the ballot box, you will have a point, and I will agree with it.

Since that cannot be shown, you have some weak-ass debating points that you overestimate as telling, when they are not.

Rush: we don't want to eliminate all liberals. We should keep some around in a zoo so we can remember all that we hate about them.

Glenn: Shoot to kill. You will have to shoot them in the head.

Per LWW, these are exactly the same as 'targeting' a building. Are they, really?

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:20 AM
You are so close to an epiphany sofanapper.

What I do is hold a mirror up to the left so they can see how ridiculous they sound ... I do admit that I get a giggle from watching them recoil in horror and denial.

Put very simply ... if the far left can see causation in Palin's target, how can they be intellectually honest and not see it in the DailyKook's or MSNBC's?

Things such as this should ... according to the left pontifications ... set them into a rage at MSNBC and the Daily Kook. But it doesn't, and never will.

When you figure out why, you will find enlightenment.

LWW &lt;---Former devout leftist.

Qtec
01-28-2011, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are so close to an epiphany </div></div>

If only I had a Dollar for every time you said that.

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are so close to an epiphany </div></div>

If only I had a Dollar for every time you said that.

Q </div></div>

I apologize for never being able to push you over the edge.

LWW

Qtec
01-28-2011, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if the far left can see causation in Palin's target, how can they be intellectually honest and not see it in the DailyKook's or MSNBC's? </div></div>

He just told you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You write as if you DO find these things hate speech, but only when it comes from the leftward side as you see it.

There comes a point, and it is well recognized, <u>that differences in DEGREE become differences in KIND. </u> </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if the far left can see causation in Palin's target, how can they be intellectually honest and not see it in the DailyKook's or MSNBC's? </div></div>

He just told you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You write as if you DO find these things hate speech, but only when it comes from the leftward side as you see it.

There comes a point, and it is well recognized, <u>that differences in DEGREE become differences in KIND. </u> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

And you just proved me correct.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put very simply ... if the far left can see causation in Palin's target, how can they be intellectually honest and not see it in the DailyKook's or MSNBC's?

Things such as this should ... according to the left pontifications ... set them into a rage at MSNBC and the Daily Kook. But it doesn't, and never will.
LWW &lt;---Former devout leftist.

</div></div>

LWW

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put very simply ... if the far left can see causation in Palin's target, how can they be intellectually honest and not see it in the DailyKook's or MSNBC's? </div></div>

..because they are in no way the same.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There comes a point, and it is well recognized, that differences in DEGREE become differences in KIND. </div></div>

Its been explained to you 20 times now and you still/won't get it.

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 06:25 AM
And you try so hard ...

LWW