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

[miketx]

I think Gianforte ruffing up the reporter helped him for the simple fact that most people can relate. If someone is harassing you and won't stop you will get physical after awhile.

"Smart" liberals aren't that smart since they think that freedom of the press means access. It simply means that the government can't punish you for reporting on the government.

The title of this post can be: when is physical violence ok? Whenever you can make excuses for it!

Physical violence is ok anytime you are in fear for your safety. You like obama, kiss every criminals ass presented.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Clinton is accused of 3 rapes and over a dozen sexual assaults.......those weren't affairs.......and he didn't use charm to attack those women.....

Not to mention that Lewensky was his subordinate. A clear abuse of his power over her when he sexually harassed her.

 

[miketx]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Many of these people here are ALL proven liars. All they are doing is ensuring 2018 pushes them even farther away from significance.

 

[AntonToo]

Assault is not okay and it is not a form of punching back, it is a form of shooting yourself in the foot.

Yes, even such basics now need to be explained to degenerates on the right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Assault is not okay, nor will it help your cause.

Yes, even such basics now need to be explained to degenerates on the right.

Maybe the problem is the way you fascist democrats "explain" it?

 

[OldLady]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

 

[TNHarley]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

 

[OldLady]

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.

That's a good question, but I'm not going down that road. I would need to take sides, wouldn't I?

 

[OldLady]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Many of these people here are ALL proven liars. All they are doing is ensuring 2018 pushes them even farther away from significance.

Show me one place I lied.

 

[OldLady]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

 

[miketx]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Many of these people here are ALL proven liars. All they are doing is ensuring 2018 pushes them even farther away from significance.

Show me one place I lied.

Notice the word "many"....

 

[TNHarley]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

So inability to distinguish between reality and dream is a problem for you as well

 

[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.

That's a good question, but I'm not going down that road. I would need to take sides, wouldn't I?

not at all.

you're not picking sides if you notice who is winning a football game, are you? commentators giving you play by play are not taking sides, just talking about who is doing what.
you're not picking sides if you believe candidate X will win based on what you see vs. Y, who you may like...

if i notice a group of people are hellbent on beating the shit out of people who've yet to *as that group* beat the shit out of ANYONE, how is that choosing sides?

my noticing someones behavior doesn't condone it nor agree or disagree with it. those are different topics.

 

[OldLady]

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.

That's a good question, but I'm not going down that road. I would need to take sides, wouldn't I?

not at all.

you're not picking sides if you notice who is winning a football game, are you? commentators giving you play by play are not taking sides, just talking about who is doing what.
you're not picking sides if you believe candidate X will win based on what you see vs. Y, who you may like...

if i notice a group of people are hellbent on beating the shit out of people who've yet to *as that group* beat the shit out of ANYONE, how is that choosing sides?

my noticing someones behavior doesn't condone it nor agree or disagree with it. those are different topics.

If I say what I believe is the truth, you'll argue with me. Guaranteed. You would take it as "taking sides."

 

[OldLady]

Jeezumcrow. The grab em by the ***** 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 ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

So inability to distinguish between reality and dream is a problem for you as well

 

[TNHarley]

I didn't say anything about Oreilley. I was referring to Clinton. Sorry.
Prove Trump actually grabbed a ***** 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.

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

So inability to distinguish between reality and dream is a problem for you as well

hey, its ok. I get it. I have two kids

 

[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.

That's a good question, but I'm not going down that road. I would need to take sides, wouldn't I?

not at all.

you're not picking sides if you notice who is winning a football game, are you? commentators giving you play by play are not taking sides, just talking about who is doing what.
you're not picking sides if you believe candidate X will win based on what you see vs. Y, who you may like...

if i notice a group of people are hellbent on beating the shit out of people who've yet to *as that group* beat the shit out of ANYONE, how is that choosing sides?

my noticing someones behavior doesn't condone it nor agree or disagree with it. those are different topics.

If I say what I believe is the truth, you'll argue with me. Guaranteed. You would take it as "taking sides."

no. id take it as your point of view. but your call.

 

[OldLady]

You're apparently getting desperate. I'm not arguing about that shit! Next you'll be wanting video.

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

So inability to distinguish between reality and dream is a problem for you as well

hey, its ok. I get it. I have two kids

I got kids too. Watch this.
<ignore>

 

[OldLady]

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.

That's a good question, but I'm not going down that road. I would need to take sides, wouldn't I?

not at all.

you're not picking sides if you notice who is winning a football game, are you? commentators giving you play by play are not taking sides, just talking about who is doing what.
you're not picking sides if you believe candidate X will win based on what you see vs. Y, who you may like...

if i notice a group of people are hellbent on beating the shit out of people who've yet to *as that group* beat the shit out of ANYONE, how is that choosing sides?

my noticing someones behavior doesn't condone it nor agree or disagree with it. those are different topics.

If I say what I believe is the truth, you'll argue with me. Guaranteed. You would take it as "taking sides."

no. id take it as your point of view. but your call.

You chose a bad day to ask that. I spent a lot of time this weekend talking to posters here blaming the victims of the Portland train incident on them. You can read all about it if you have the stomach.
I'd say the Right is winning in the war on justifying violence right now.

 

[TNHarley]

Im not getting "desperate." Im also not getting "emotional"
Try it

In your dreams I'm emotional.

So inability to distinguish between reality and dream is a problem for you as well

hey, its ok. I get it. I have two kids

I got kids too. Watch this.
<ignore>

ignore fail