"Kill Romney"

I'm jumping (?) on the violent rhetoric because it simply shows the utter BS from the Left.

So the left's view is represented by one unnamed strategist?

I bet you're a riot around the dinner table, PS. Do you ever NOT over analyze everything?

HEARTLESS wrote: I'm jumping (?) on the violent rhetoric because it simply shows the utter BS from the Left.

So when the left does it it's utter BS, but it's quite alright when the right does it. Well that explains a lot.

archer wrote: On another note, why are the righties here suddenly jumping on the "violent rhetoric is bad" bandwagon when they defended the same rhetoric from their own side?

Flawed premise archer. The righties rejected that the rhetoric was violent in the first place, that was the premise of the lefties. What we are doing is asking the lefties why they would so regularly use rhetoric that they view as violent if their intention is not violent as well. If I do not view such rhetoric as violent, then I wouldn't associate the use of it as a call to action involving violence. If one does view such rhetoric as violent in nature, then the only reasoned conclusion that can be drawn is that when one who holds that view uses such rhetoric, it is because they are using it as a call for violence.

WayneH wrote: I bet you're a riot around the dinner table, PS. Do you ever NOT over analyze everything?

I think PrintSmith is in some kind of on-line contest where you get points for stringing together as many 10 point words as he can, exra points if it makes no discernible sense.

archer, it was only bad before the Left embraced it, now its good. :woo hoo:

WayneH wrote: So the left's view is represented by one unnamed strategist?

I bet you're a riot around the dinner table, PS. Do you ever NOT over analyze everything?

There have been far more than this one instance lately Wayne, or have you simply failed to notice the recent comparisons to suicide bombers, terrorists and other demagogic references that have originated from the complicit mass media in the last week or so. I don't think you are that unobservant Wayne, but perhaps I am wrong.

Can we get a "its Bush's fault?" Or how about the TEA Party?

It will be interesting to see how Obama's marketing campaign develops over the next several months.

He can't run on his successes as President, because he really doesn't have any.

He can't run on the Warm-n-Fuzzy Hope and Change again.

So, what will he do? A personal attack on whoever is nominated to try to tear them down as much as possible - as this article suggests, and cultivate an environment of fear among the elderly and ill? He'll have a real hard time developing a positive campaign.

OmniScience wrote: It will be interesting to see how Obama's marketing campaign develops over the next several months.

He can't run on his successes as President, because he really doesn't have any.

He can't run on the Warm-n-Fuzzy Hope and Change again.

So, what will he do? A personal attack on whoever is nominated to try to tear them down as much as possible - as this article suggests, and cultivate an environment of fear among the elderly and ill? He'll have a real hard time developing a positive campaign.

hmmmmm.....sounds like they asre taking a page out of the GOP play book. The GOP did well the last election with that strategy.......and of course their cry of jobs, jobs, jobs, which they have not even addressed in the House.