Kurt Schlichter explains to left wingers that what happened in the Montana race is their fault

[iceberg]

unfuckingbelievable.

and that's where we've evolved to now and it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.
You do realize, don't you, that you just (1) justified the guy's violence and (2) spent most of the thread rationalizing why it's okay to justify it because of all the bad things the left has done.
Now that's not being neutral, imo. That's being a Republican defending the indefensible because it's a Republican. It's not the end of the world, so I'm not going to get in a passionate dispute with you about it, but he behaved inappropriately. Period.
If you truly want to try to be fair, I suggest you not get duped into the argument of hypocrisy by the left. All that really is, is a way to deflect from the real point of the criticism. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. It's not the point and it's not a valid argument. Defend your man and hold your ground, but don't start pointing fingers at the other side.

Now you'll probably show me how the left does the above too. LOL.

ieft my last part of the quote off you missed in your rush to paint me broadly.

"it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not".

i never said it was ok. i said if you poke the bear long enough it's going to slap you. bear-nature if you will. the left has been "poking the bear" ever since trump was elected and how long will it be before they "poke back".

now suddenly because i feel this is what people do as a course of nature, i'm saying it's ok for one side. please, show me where i said that. i didn't say either side was right, i just noticed the bullshit parade we're all a part of these days in some form or fashion.

i said it's not ok for what the left is doing. and it's not - i'll stand by that.

as for the rest of your...crap...(for lack of a better word) i try to be respectful to you cause i do respect your views and stance you take on things. but this doesn't mean i'm going to agree with all you said or will say. it just means i appreciate how you put your arguments together and the thought you give to both sides. til now. you pretty much said i didn't think this through and am just a pom pom waving cheerleader for one sides violence over the other.

so NOT what i said. but since that's all you got out of it, i'll let it slide. you wanna run around thinking i've been duped, your call, your day. have fun. but again - that doesn't mean i agree with you nor your "conclusions" to what i did in fact say.

 

[iceberg]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

no body slamming an opponent isn't ok. neither is body slamming a reporter or anyone else for that matter.

but if we're to make a list of what is not *ok* it would be full and both sides well represented as I think you would agree.

i don't think it's ok for people not living in that area to try and influence the outcome.
i don't think it's ok for a reporter to simply barge in and demand answers and "set up" people for a pre-determined outcome
i don't think it's ok for us to cry foul when *the other side does something* yet we turn around and do the same, or worse, using THEIR actions as justification for our own.
i don't think it's ok both sides look to be mad and angry at the other side - this only means they will find it honestly, or via their own mental malfunctions.
i don't think it's ok for "anti-fa" to portray themselves as "patriots for free speech" and run around collecting scalps (or trying to and getting punched in the face instead) and shutting down anyone who doesn't "toe the line" with THEIR mindset (one of the most dangerous activities out there now cause many and the media justify it as *needed*)
i don't think it's ok to push one lifestyle over another at the expense of the other.
i don't think it's ok for the left to call white people racist for merely existing and run to "micro-aggression" since they got nothing else or cultural apparition of our own "culture values" while we take whatever we want from others.
i don't think it's ok to redefine words as you go and call people the worst possible types of "people" to justify our own insecurities and anger

there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

and that's where we've evolved to now and it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.
You do realize, don't you, that you just (1) justified the guy's violence and (2) spent most of the thread rationalizing why it's okay to justify it because of all the bad things the left has done.
Now that's not being neutral, imo. That's being a Republican defending the indefensible because it's a Republican. It's not the end of the world, so I'm not going to get in a passionate dispute with you about it, but he behaved inappropriately. Period.
If you truly want to try to be fair, I suggest you not get duped into the argument of hypocrisy by the left. All that really is, is a way to deflect from the real point of the criticism. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. It's not the point and it's not a valid argument. Defend your man and hold your ground, but don't start pointing fingers at the other side.
Now you'll probably show me how the left does the above too. LOL.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back. it's far from being "duped" to know what human behavior will do.

 

[OldLady]

but this doesn't mean i'm going to agree with all you said or will say.
Never hesitate to disagree with me; I won't sulk.

you pretty much said i didn't think this through and am just a pom pom waving cheerleader for one sides violence over the other.
I didn't mean to say that at all. I believe you do think things through, and I didn't miss the fact that you object to the behavior on both sides. Be that as it may, the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

 

[TNHarley]

GREAT article. Spot on!

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

 

[OldLady]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

no body slamming an opponent isn't ok. neither is body slamming a reporter or anyone else for that matter.

but if we're to make a list of what is not *ok* it would be full and both sides well represented as I think you would agree.

i don't think it's ok for people not living in that area to try and influence the outcome.
i don't think it's ok for a reporter to simply barge in and demand answers and "set up" people for a pre-determined outcome
i don't think it's ok for us to cry foul when *the other side does something* yet we turn around and do the same, or worse, using THEIR actions as justification for our own.
i don't think it's ok both sides look to be mad and angry at the other side - this only means they will find it honestly, or via their own mental malfunctions.
i don't think it's ok for "anti-fa" to portray themselves as "patriots for free speech" and run around collecting scalps (or trying to and getting punched in the face instead) and shutting down anyone who doesn't "toe the line" with THEIR mindset (one of the most dangerous activities out there now cause many and the media justify it as *needed*)
i don't think it's ok to push one lifestyle over another at the expense of the other.
i don't think it's ok for the left to call white people racist for merely existing and run to "micro-aggression" since they got nothing else or cultural apparition of our own "culture values" while we take whatever we want from others.
i don't think it's ok to redefine words as you go and call people the worst possible types of "people" to justify our own insecurities and anger

there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

and that's where we've evolved to now and it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.
You do realize, don't you, that you just (1) justified the guy's violence and (2) spent most of the thread rationalizing why it's okay to justify it because of all the bad things the left has done.
Now that's not being neutral, imo. That's being a Republican defending the indefensible because it's a Republican. It's not the end of the world, so I'm not going to get in a passionate dispute with you about it, but he behaved inappropriately. Period.
If you truly want to try to be fair, I suggest you not get duped into the argument of hypocrisy by the left. All that really is, is a way to deflect from the real point of the criticism. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. It's not the point and it's not a valid argument. Defend your man and hold your ground, but don't start pointing fingers at the other side.
Now you'll probably show me how the left does the above too. LOL.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back. it's far from being "duped" to know what human behavior will do.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back.
Then that's what you should have said. Take a look at your post again tomorrow and see if you can see what I mean.

 

[OldLady]

GREAT article. Spot on!

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't see why democrats even ACTUALLY gave a shit.. Hell, they elected a mayor that behind bars for MURDER. More than likely, disingenuous bullshit.
He is a public figure and they shouldn't do that. However, many people, like me, want REGULAR people in the public eye. so IDK how I truly feel about it...

 

[TNHarley]

GREAT article. Spot on!

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

I typed it

 

[iceberg]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

no body slamming an opponent isn't ok. neither is body slamming a reporter or anyone else for that matter.

but if we're to make a list of what is not *ok* it would be full and both sides well represented as I think you would agree.

i don't think it's ok for people not living in that area to try and influence the outcome.
i don't think it's ok for a reporter to simply barge in and demand answers and "set up" people for a pre-determined outcome
i don't think it's ok for us to cry foul when *the other side does something* yet we turn around and do the same, or worse, using THEIR actions as justification for our own.
i don't think it's ok both sides look to be mad and angry at the other side - this only means they will find it honestly, or via their own mental malfunctions.
i don't think it's ok for "anti-fa" to portray themselves as "patriots for free speech" and run around collecting scalps (or trying to and getting punched in the face instead) and shutting down anyone who doesn't "toe the line" with THEIR mindset (one of the most dangerous activities out there now cause many and the media justify it as *needed*)
i don't think it's ok to push one lifestyle over another at the expense of the other.
i don't think it's ok for the left to call white people racist for merely existing and run to "micro-aggression" since they got nothing else or cultural apparition of our own "culture values" while we take whatever we want from others.
i don't think it's ok to redefine words as you go and call people the worst possible types of "people" to justify our own insecurities and anger

there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

and that's where we've evolved to now and it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.
You do realize, don't you, that you just (1) justified the guy's violence and (2) spent most of the thread rationalizing why it's okay to justify it because of all the bad things the left has done.
Now that's not being neutral, imo. That's being a Republican defending the indefensible because it's a Republican. It's not the end of the world, so I'm not going to get in a passionate dispute with you about it, but he behaved inappropriately. Period.
If you truly want to try to be fair, I suggest you not get duped into the argument of hypocrisy by the left. All that really is, is a way to deflect from the real point of the criticism. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. It's not the point and it's not a valid argument. Defend your man and hold your ground, but don't start pointing fingers at the other side.
Now you'll probably show me how the left does the above too. LOL.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back. it's far from being "duped" to know what human behavior will do.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back.
Then that's what you should have said. Take a look at your post again tomorrow and see if you can see what I mean.

i did say that. i said a lot around that also and yes, at times i do lean to a given side. we all do. doesn't mean i stay there and doesn't mean i'm a pom pom'er.

for you to find it there usually means you put it there.

all i can pull from this you may take issue or wonder about would be:
there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

and it's not ok. it's not ok for 1 side to shut down the other. most recent examples are anti-fa doing this to ANYONE at berkley that was not on their side. it's NOT OK to use violence to shut down the other side. i then immediately said:

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

where i explain this is a human reaction - to hit back - not a left or right. but today, the left is doing a lot of hitting to start and the right, if they start hitting back - is just getting to the point any of us would get to after it's happened long enough.

recognizing it will happen is not condoning it.

if you have examples of the right propping up free speech rallys and beating the shit out of the left that shows up, lay 'em on me. i'll be sure to include those next time in my analysis.

 

[JBond]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

If a loon broke into my office screaming at me, I'm putting him down. That is how it works.

 

[OldLady]

GREAT article. Spot on!

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

 

[TNHarley]

GREAT article. Spot on!

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

 

[OldLady]

There's a difference between harassing coworkers/using your power to try to coerce sexual relations and being a hound dog who is having a mutually agreed upon affair with one.
People keep saying O'Reilly and Trump's attitudes toward women are no more disgusting than Clinton's affairs. Well, when a man and woman agree to fool around, it is quite different from the attitude O'Reilly and Trump exhibit. O'Reilly and Trump seem to think they are "deserving" by dint of their enormous egos and can take sexual favors regardless if the woman is willing. Clinton just used his oily southern charm to schmooze the ladies and they had mutual enjoyment until Hillary found out.
There is a DIFFERENCE.

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

You on your phone? Anyway--this is how I refute it. And don't start with that damned "Witch hunting" thing. You sound like a Trump bot.

the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

 

[TNHarley]

Ironically, Trump has only been ACCUSED of that stuff.
SAME as Bill. You know, rapes and shit

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

You on your phone? Anyway--this is how I refute it. And don't start with that damned "Witch hunting" thing. You sound like a Trump bot.

the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

That's not what I did, Ms. English. I directly commented on what you said. No fallacy involved. Except with you.
You cant say trump is worse than bill because it has NEVER been PROVEN he is. Just your obvious bias. Just like the rape allegations against Bill.
They are one in the same.

 

[OldLady]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

no body slamming an opponent isn't ok. neither is body slamming a reporter or anyone else for that matter.

but if we're to make a list of what is not *ok* it would be full and both sides well represented as I think you would agree.

i don't think it's ok for people not living in that area to try and influence the outcome.
i don't think it's ok for a reporter to simply barge in and demand answers and "set up" people for a pre-determined outcome
i don't think it's ok for us to cry foul when *the other side does something* yet we turn around and do the same, or worse, using THEIR actions as justification for our own.
i don't think it's ok both sides look to be mad and angry at the other side - this only means they will find it honestly, or via their own mental malfunctions.
i don't think it's ok for "anti-fa" to portray themselves as "patriots for free speech" and run around collecting scalps (or trying to and getting punched in the face instead) and shutting down anyone who doesn't "toe the line" with THEIR mindset (one of the most dangerous activities out there now cause many and the media justify it as *needed*)
i don't think it's ok to push one lifestyle over another at the expense of the other.
i don't think it's ok for the left to call white people racist for merely existing and run to "micro-aggression" since they got nothing else or cultural apparition of our own "culture values" while we take whatever we want from others.
i don't think it's ok to redefine words as you go and call people the worst possible types of "people" to justify our own insecurities and anger

there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

and that's where we've evolved to now and it really doesn't matter what you or i think is ok or not.

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.
You do realize, don't you, that you just (1) justified the guy's violence and (2) spent most of the thread rationalizing why it's okay to justify it because of all the bad things the left has done.
Now that's not being neutral, imo. That's being a Republican defending the indefensible because it's a Republican. It's not the end of the world, so I'm not going to get in a passionate dispute with you about it, but he behaved inappropriately. Period.
If you truly want to try to be fair, I suggest you not get duped into the argument of hypocrisy by the left. All that really is, is a way to deflect from the real point of the criticism. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. It's not the point and it's not a valid argument. Defend your man and hold your ground, but don't start pointing fingers at the other side.
Now you'll probably show me how the left does the above too. LOL.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back. it's far from being "duped" to know what human behavior will do.

by the way - my entire point was human nature, not taking a side. if one "mindset" hits another mindset cause they don't like them, sooner or later they will in fact hit back.
Then that's what you should have said. Take a look at your post again tomorrow and see if you can see what I mean.

i did say that. i said a lot around that also and yes, at times i do lean to a given side. we all do. doesn't mean i stay there and doesn't mean i'm a pom pom'er.

for you to find it there usually means you put it there.

all i can pull from this you may take issue or wonder about would be:
there's a whole lot NOT OK in the world today. but if you think the right fighting back because they're sick of the left pushing their values and their idea around and trying to shut down anything they don't like - we'll that's DAMN SURE not ok.

and it's not ok. it's not ok for 1 side to shut down the other. most recent examples are anti-fa doing this to ANYONE at berkley that was not on their side. it's NOT OK to use violence to shut down the other side. i then immediately said:

i don't think either of us believe this is going to be an isolated incident, unfortunately. but you can only go into overdrive to shut down one side of "thought" before that side has had enough and starts to react in a very "human" way.

where i explain this is a human reaction - to hit back - not a left or right. but today, the left is doing a lot of hitting to start and the right, if they start hitting back - is just getting to the point any of us would get to after it's happened long enough.

recognizing it will happen is not condoning it.

if you have examples of the right propping up free speech rallys and beating the shit out of the left that shows up, lay 'em on me. i'll be sure to include those next time in my analysis.

This is about ONE guy who got p.o.'d because a reporter was overly pushy. If this Congressman is looking at the reporter as a harbinger of the Devil Left for asking him what he thinks of the new CBO score on the healthcare plan, he's got issues. Maybe he IS listening too much to Trump.

 

[OldLady]

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

You on your phone? Anyway--this is how I refute it. And don't start with that damned "Witch hunting" thing. You sound like a Trump bot.

the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

That's not what I did, Ms. English. I directly commented on what you said. No fallacy involved. Except with you.
You cant say trump is worse than bill because it has NEVER been PROVEN he is. Just your obvious bias. Just like the rape allegations against Bill.
They are one in the same.

Jeezumcrow. The grab em by the pussy thing is NOT an allegation. According to the payouts by Fox News, neither is the O'Reilly stuff. Neither is the Monica Lewinsky affair. She admitted she was 100% in favor of the whole thing. Go back and read what I said a bit more carefully this time.

 

[OldLady]

Read the above.

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

You on your phone? Anyway--this is how I refute it. And don't start with that damned "Witch hunting" thing. You sound like a Trump bot.

the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

That's not what I did, Ms. English. I directly commented on what you said. No fallacy involved. Except with you.
You cant say trump is worse than bill because it has NEVER been PROVEN he is. Just your obvious bias. Just like the rape allegations against Bill.
They are one in the same.

How dare you say I'm a fallacy? I just pinched myself to be sure.

 

[iceberg]

This is about ONE guy who got p.o.'d because a reporter was overly pushy. If this Congressman is looking at the reporter as a harbinger of the Devil Left for asking him what he thinks of the new CBO score on the healthcare plan, he's got issues. Maybe he IS listening too much to Trump.

is trump and the cons running around hitting people right now? (outside this *one* guy that is)

let me ask you this - which side at this point has done more to 'normalize violence' in todays political climate? actual actions, not fear driven ones.

 

[TNHarley]

I typed it

GO FURTHER UP! You must have had a good vacay--full of beans.

its a new page. I don't care enough to go witch hunting.
My point remains. I don't see how you could "refute" it..

You on your phone? Anyway--this is how I refute it. And don't start with that damned "Witch hunting" thing. You sound like a Trump bot.

the moral equivalence argument isn't valid and doesn't add to the discussion much, IMO.

Just my opinion. The moral equivalence fallacy is a really popular one and it is used here extensively to take threads off track. I'm not saying that's why you used it and I'm not lumping you with anyone, at least not purposely. But it's not an argument that persuades me off my little hill.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Moral equivalence - RationalWiki

That's not what I did, Ms. English. I directly commented on what you said. No fallacy involved. Except with you.
You cant say trump is worse than bill because it has NEVER been PROVEN he is. Just your obvious bias. Just like the rape allegations against Bill.
They are one in the same.

Jeezumcrow. The grab em by the pussy thing is NOT an allegation. According to the payouts by Fox News, neither is the O'Reilly stuff. Neither is the Monica Lewinsky affair. She admitted she was 100% in favor of the whole thing. Go back and read what I said a bit more carefully this time.

I didn't say anything about Oreilley. I was referring to Clinton. Sorry.
Prove Trump actually grabbed a pussy without consent. People say stuff all the time. Also, even if he did, it still wouldn't show they didn't want it. That is your OWN allegation. Just like the allegations against Bill raping multiple people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

unfuckingbelievable.

The wingers on both fringes are very unhealthy, and that includes those on the far right. But that Montana dude? He's just got anger management issues, which isn't normally a good thing for elected officials. But if you think part of our choice of representative needs to be how capable they are of body slamming an opponent, okay.

As long as the fascist democrats have their Brown Shirts out there assaulting and intemidating people to crush freedom of speech and thought. this is only going to get worse, much worse.

This retard on the train in Oregon is a scumbag who should be put down - BUT it is the unbridled hate and violence of the left, celebrated by the media and ignored by law enforcement that gives nutjobs like this the idea they have license to be violent.