Bombs, Bombs Everywhere...

[oxmixmudd]

I thoroughly disagree. News simply isn't news any more. I am old enough to remember when news just reported news.

As am I.

It does matter.

You split the sentence bill, answering the first phrase completely out of context. Do you not care to be accurate or to actually address what it said? You do realize that taking words out of context and creating fake answers to altered text isn't being honest - right?

It doesn't matter in terms of whether or not what Trump is doing is right or wrong. You, MM, rougue, sparko, even CP and other continue to make this basic mistake. If something is wrong, it does not suddenly become ok if somebody else did it. So what Obama did that was wrong does not in any way excuse what Trump is DOING wrong, nor does it mean we can't talk about what Trump is doing wrong unless we first write a 1000 words listing other officials who also did something wrong.

...

Pointing something out isn't mocking, Jim.

Mockingly pointing something out however, is mocking. Are you really going to try to suggest that many of the replies to my posts have no mockery in them? Please. Every single reply by MM alone contains at least 1 element of mockery.

Stating our opinion that you have overinflated the importance of mean-spirited comments isn't mocking, Jim. Even using a bit of puerile snips isn't really mocking.

Me thinks you protest too much. You statement is just so totally outlandish as to not warrent any serious comment.

I didn't even comment in that thread, so I can't speak to anyone else's responses. I do think that intentionally trying to destroy someone's livelihood is dangerous, unless it is the nature of the beast, i.e. politics. And even then, it is a delicate balance between cruel and real.


Well, no one should be forced to work for you unless they are in public safety. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy in that case.

And so here you are agreeing that the response the the baker was wrong ...

AKA an adult capable of dying for the country...



Quote EXACTLY what she said, Jim. Not your summation of the issue. Then I will comment.

And here you are spinning around and wanting oh so badly to minimize what happened to this girl on behalf of trump and his attack on her.

That's stupid.



And that's even stupider.



That's disgusting, and anyone who does that is a moron.

Why yes, they are. And who was it that loosed a whole hoard of moron's just like him on this girl? Donald Trump.

If her safety was truly at stake because of idiots who need to be switched by their mothers, then yes, I agree that is WAY over the line.

I've never been a fan of that sort of behavior. Threatening violence on others ought to be a crime in my opinion.

When people are sending out hate threats and say they will seek your out, pummel you, and pee in your bloody mouth, you MUST assume their safety is in danger. Yet this is the sort of thing Trump unleashes, and unleashed here. Did he apologize? No. Was he horrified? No. Did he do anything to try to stop those who follow him from behaving in this way? No. Does he know they will do things like this and does he still target individual with attacks on twitter? Yes. Do people still suffer from similar sorts of attacks from Trump supporters when he does this? Yes. Has he ever with incident after incident tried to directly address his followers and tell them to stop doing things like that? No. Does he continue to rally his supporters and get them riled up against people the challenge him or the press. Yes.

Yes it is. Until it crosses the line into outright harassment, threats of violence, or actual violence. Until then, mockery is a legitimate use of free speech. Getting your feelings hurt is not a reason to inflate the importance of that speech.

We are not talking about just getting peoples feelings hurt. How can you forget in 1 paragraph what happened to the college student. How can you ignore the trump fan who mailed out all those packages to trumps critics? Has Trump yet reigned in his rhetoric against the press? No. Do you think if one of his fans or a group of them mails out bombs that actually work he will reign in his rhetoric? Doubtful.

When mocking turns to legitimate harassment or violence, that's where the line should be. If Trump ever calls for his supporters to phone-bomb, DDoS, Dox, or otherwise harass his opponents, then you will have a valid comparison. Until then, you are falsely equating a mere insult with actual things that result in harm.

Again - it already has done that. Multiple times. Trump doesn't have to ask directly. He knows he doesn't need to. He knows they will do it without being told. He is already complicit by not addressing his followers directly and telling them this sort of thing must stop. That he won't tolerate it. That anyone that thinks he wants them to do these sorts of things is wrong and it must stop. When has Trump actively tried to reign it in?


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Nope.

You reek of hypocrisy.

[Tassman]

No, the only thing I was defending was Trump's right to accurately and truthfully describe her as "nasty".

Trump is a compulsive liar. He has not been reliably "accurate" or "truthful" about anything in his life.

In that case, I can blame you for the actions of an anti-Trump bigot who gunned down innocent people in a synagogue.

The antisemitic bigot who gunned down innocent people in a synagogue was "anti Trump" only inasmuch as Trump wasn't 'Trumpy' enough. He supported Trump's general thrust re the caravan "invasion" of refugees from Honduras, but critiqued him for not going far enough by blaming the Jews for orchestrating it.

You reek of hypocrisy.

This from a Trump supporter.

[Mountain Man]

The antisemitic bigot who gunned down innocent people in a synagogue was "anti Trump" only inasmuch as Trump wasn't 'Trumpy' enough.

Uh-huh... right. And his actions were not in anyway influenced by the anti-Trump zealotry of the left. Is that what we're being asked to believe?

For the record, I'm not blaming liberals for the shooter's actions, I'm just pointing out their blatant hypocrisy.

[Cow Poke]

The antisemitic bigot who gunned down innocent people...

This coming from the smarmy anti-Christian bigot who has nothing better to do than hang around a Christian run board being a jackass.

[oxmixmudd]

This coming from the smarmy anti-Christian bigot who has nothing better to do than hang around a Christian run board being a jackass.

?

[oxmixmudd]

You reek of hypocrisy.

sticks and stones luv.

Jim

[Roy]

And yes, I can blame Donald Trump for what individuals following him have done in response to his attacks.

In that case, I can blame you for the actions of an anti-Trump bigot who gunned down innocent people in a synagogue.

The mail-bomb sender was follower of Donald Trump's rhetoric.
I doubt the synagogue shooter was a follower of oxmixmud's TWeb posts.

[Sparko]

The mail-bomb sender was follower of Donald Trump's rhetoric.
I doubt the synagogue shooter was a follower of oxmixmud's TWeb posts.

So we can blame Hillary for all of the Antifa and liberal violence over the last two years, like the shooting of the Republican congressmen at the baseball field?

[Mountain Man]

The mail-bomb sender was follower of Donald Trump's rhetoric.
I doubt the synagogue shooter was a follower of oxmixmud's TWeb posts.

ox is one of many adding fuel to the anti-Trump fires. If Trump can be blamed for the actions of a crazy guy sending fake bombs in the mail, then certainly every vocal anti-Trump liberal bears at least some blame for an anti-Trump nutter who shot up a synagogue. It's just too bad that you don't like the implications of ox's line of reasoning.

[Bill the Cat]

As am I.

Then you should agree that news simply isn't news any more. Not on the national stage. For every one legitimate news story, there are at least 10 slanted "gotcha" pieces that simply are not news. There just is no way anyone can reasonably deny that.

You split the sentence bill, answering the first phrase completely out of context. Do you not care to be accurate or to actually address what it said? You do realize that taking words out of context and creating fake answers to altered text isn't being honest - right?

It wasn't out of context. I simply don't like making 4 separate replies in the same paragraph. Take this one for instance. You have made 2 accusations and 2 questions. I would rather break them up and answer point by point instead of saying...

Yes, I did. For the purpose of answering that particular charge. And no, it wasn't out of context. And yes, I wish to address what you said. That's why I broke it up into your separate claims. And yes I know breaking something up to intentionally mislead is wrong. That's why I try to answer each point while taking the entirety into account. If I fail, please point it out and I will fix it.

Now, wasn't that a disjointed mess?

It doesn't matter in terms of whether or not what Trump is doing is right or wrong.

It actually DOES matter because of the blatant hypocrisy of pointing a finger and calling something bad out of one side of your mouth and excusing or failing to call the same as bad out of the other. Hypocrites lose quite a bit of moral high ground when they act hypocritically.

You, MM, rougue, sparko, even CP and other continue to make this basic mistake. If something is wrong, it does not suddenly become ok if somebody else did it.

And the contrary is accurate as well. If you excuse someone for a behavior, don't come out blazing guns when someone else you just don't like does the same.

So what Obama did that was wrong does not in any way excuse what Trump is DOING wrong, nor does it mean we can't talk about what Trump is doing wrong unless we first write a 1000 words listing other officials who also did something wrong.

You seem to be missing the basics of what is being argued. Why? I can't say, but it isn't like it hasn't been pounded in the ground. The majority of people whining about what Trump is doing wrong are the same ones who looked the other way when Obama, Clinton, Reed, Pelosi, etc. did the same. Hypocrites have ZERO room to criticize someone else.

Mockingly pointing something out however, is mocking. Are you really going to try to suggest that many of the replies to my posts have no mockery in them? Please. Every single reply by MM alone contains at least 1 element of mockery.

I'm not MM. I can't speak for him.

Me thinks you protest too much. You statement is just so totally outlandish as to not warrent any serious comment.

Avoiding the statement noted.

And so here you are agreeing that the response the the baker was wrong ...

This phrase doesn't make any sense, so I don't know what you are trying to say. Crippling harassment and threats of violence are not civilized ways to respond to ANY opponent.

And here you are spinning around and wanting oh so badly to minimize what happened to this girl on behalf of trump and his attack on her.

Again, you assume that it WAS on behalf of Trump instead of some idiots acting like idiots. You know Charles Manson was inspired to kill by the Beatles' White album, right? Did the Manson family act on behalf of the Beatles?

Why yes, they are. And who was it that loosed a whole hoard of moron's just like him on this girl? Donald Trump.

Quote where Trump said "Go get her!" That someone used him as an inspiration is on THEM, not him.

When people are sending out hate threats and say they will seek your out, pummel you, and pee in your bloody mouth, you MUST assume their safety is in danger.

Agreed.

Yet this is the sort of thing Trump unleashes, and unleashed here.

The hell he did. Unless you can find a tweet, speech, or other communication that shows he encouraged everyone to make threats at this woman, then you are making a false accusation.

Did he apologize? No. Was he horrified? No. Did he do anything to try to stop those who follow him from behaving in this way? No. Does he know they will do things like this and does he still target individual with attacks on twitter? Yes. Do people still suffer from similar sorts of attacks from Trump supporters when he does this? Yes. Has he ever with incident after incident tried to directly address his followers and tell them to stop doing things like that? No. Does he continue to rally his supporters and get them riled up against people the challenge him or the press. Yes.

"No nation can succeed that tolerates violence,"

I only know of the one time he encouraged anyone to do anything violent, and that was in retaliation for people attacking convention attendees and him telling them he would pay for their defense if they fought back.

We are not talking about just getting peoples feelings hurt. How can you forget in 1 paragraph what happened to the college student. How can you ignore the trump fan who mailed out all those packages to trumps critics? Has Trump yet reigned in his rhetoric against the press? No. Do you think if one of his fans or a group of them mails out bombs that actually work he will reign in his rhetoric? Doubtful.

Manson was a Beatles fan.

Again - it already has done that. Multiple times. Trump doesn't have to ask directly. He knows he doesn't need to. He knows they will do it without being told. He is already complicit by not addressing his followers directly and telling them this sort of thing must stop. That he won't tolerate it. That anyone that thinks he wants them to do these sorts of things is wrong and it must stop. When has Trump actively tried to reign it in?

Yep. 5 days ago in Madison, WI. Next...

[Bill the Cat]

The mail-bomb sender was follower of Donald Trump's rhetoric.
I doubt the synagogue shooter was a follower of oxmixmud's TWeb posts.

How about the Congressional softball game shooter?

[Cow Poke]

How about the Congressional softball game shooter?

Baseball. They're not a bunch of sissies.

[JimL]

How about the Congressional softball game shooter?

You think Obama's divisive rhetoric spurred him on?

[Sparko]

You think Obama's divisive rhetoric spurred him on?

Obviously Hillary did. It was all her fault right? for having such lunatic followers?