Jesus ******* Christ.
This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
If you don't think that Sarah Palin's map was "threatening" Giffords, then this isn't "threatening" Walker.
Yes let's talk about the "intellectual dishonesty" There was no intent to have any democrat targeted for killing, as a matter of fact those target sights where \actually surveors marks and not sights. Walker was specificly targeted by who ever drew those dead body marks with his name in the outline. In a court of law that would be communcating a threat.
No, it wouldn't, if it was legally actionable, the protesters would have been arrested. There is NO difference between this and Sarah's map - and they're both perfectly fine. I know you have no problem with Sarah's map - why is it so hard to admit that there's nothing wrong with this either?
There is nothing wrong with hyperbole in rhetoric. I'm not a member of the PC police. I find it ridiculous that YOU are.