But don't call them violent thugs

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:26 am

Mentat wrote:The "benefit of the doubt" alternative doesn't change things much. If she accepts the events as they happened, and she's making a death threat outright.
A death threat to those who would attempt physical contact without her permission.
Or she doesn't against all of the evidence and even Gianforte's own admission, and hence has a very warped reality where journalists are bad guys to be dealt with force.
That's an assumption that I do not see evidence for present.
In which case is still a threat, because in her own mind Jacobs was deserving to be dealt with violently anyways.
Are you a mind reader now?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:31 am

Mentat wrote:No, that this is becoming the new face of the GOP. Liberals are the enemy. Journalists are the enemy. Therefore it's okay to harm them.
The original incident took place in May of 2017. However, since you've posted this in October, we can count the following from that point: how much violence would you say have been committed against Journalist by the "new face of the GOP" or any face of the GOP?

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:53 am

Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:The "benefit of the doubt" alternative doesn't change things much. If she accepts the events as they happened, and she's making a death threat outright.
A death threat to those who would attempt physical contact without her permission.
Or she doesn't against all of the evidence and even Gianforte's own admission, and hence has a very warped reality where journalists are bad guys to be dealt with force.
That's an assumption that I do not see evidence for present.
In which case is still a threat, because in her own mind Jacobs was deserving to be dealt with violently anyways.
Are you a mind reader now?
Now you're just being flat out stupid. I split it up into the two possible cases: the story that Jacobs didn't approach or touch Gianforte (per eye witness accounts, audio recording, and Gianforte's own admission), or one where he did. And I showed in either way, she's a dangerous psycho.

But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the GOP puts these people into power because that's what their base wants. Because this sick thuggish behavior what they - and you - will excuse and defend. And they still keep getting re-elected and voted in, with warm welcomes at their rallies.

Because they're doing the dirty work their base doesn't want to publicly admit to wanting to be done. That's why they fanatically defend them beyond any degree of reason.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:04 am

Mentat wrote: Now you're just being flat out stupid. I split it up into the two possible cases: the story that Jacobs didn't approach or touch Gianforte (per eye witness accounts, audio recording, and Gianforte's own admission), or one where he did. And I showed in either way, she's a dangerous psycho.

But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the GOP puts these people into power because that's what their base wants. Because this sick thuggish behavior what they - and you - will excuse and defend. And they still keep getting re-elected and voted in, with warm welcomes at their rallies.

Because they're doing the dirty work their base doesn't want to publicly admit to wanting to be done. That's why they fanatically defend them beyond any degree of reason.
Or you are spinning a conspiracy web around GOP out of an isolated case. But I can be biased and stupid, so you're about to show me more examples of thuggish GOP thugs as they thug some journalists.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:08 am

So these people are in power because the GOP and their fanbase is not fine with it? New type of logic to me. Surely not a consequence of the whole anti-journalist attitude of the new populist side of the right.

But keep trying to push that goal post. When another transgression, another assault, another attack happens, I'll look forward to how you justify that too.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:15 am

Mentat wrote:So these people are in power because the GOP and their fanbase is not fine with it?
How would I know?
But keep trying to push that goal post. When another transgression, another assault, another attack happens, I'll look forward to how you justify that too.
I have not in any way, shape, or form justified this assault.

My commentary has been strictly about a hypothetical encounter Karen Marshall spoke of on a radio show.

My question have been strictly about other incidents of violence by the GOP against journalist.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:17 am

And it was explained in detail how even the "benefit of the doubt" scenario still makes her dangerous. But you don't want to hear that. You just want to see the violence continue while you smile and look away.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:19 am

Mentat wrote:And it was explained in detail how even the "benefit of the doubt" scenario still makes her dangerous. But you don't want to hear that.
I agree it's dangerous if that wasn't clear.
You just want to see the violence continue while you smile and look away.
I am asking for evidence that violence is continuing.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:27 am

I don't see them being removed. In fact, the last update was the NRCC recently picked Gianforte of all people as a speaker. He's not just somebody along for the ride, he's being put as somebody to listen and look up too.

And we've been over the whole violence is increasing thing. You just put your fingers in your ears and just pretend it isn't happening.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:37 am

Mentat wrote:I don't see them being removed. In fact, the last update was the NRCC recently picked Gianforte of all people as a speaker. He's not just somebody along for the ride, he's being put as somebody to listen and look up too.

And we've been over the whole violence is increasing thing. You just put your fingers in your ears and just pretend it isn't happening.
You have not provided any evidence.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:54 am

Since may, there have been 5 people killed and 21 wounded in a spate of right wing attacks. A large uptick since the previous November.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:01 am

Mentat wrote:Since may, there have been 5 people killed and 21 wounded in a spate of right wing attacks. A large uptick since the previous November.
That is not what you've claimed nor what I've asked evidence for, nor is this evidence for it.

Let me remind you
Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote: No, that this is becoming the new face of the GOP. Liberals are the enemy. Journalists are the enemy. Therefore it's okay to harm them.

The original incident took place in May of 2017. However, since you've posted this in October, we can count the following from that point: how much violence would you say have been committed against Journalist by the "new face of the GOP" or any face of the GOP?

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:21 am

I'm not playing to your goal posts. You also ignored half of what I specified (Liberals and Journalists) and missed the point: this new face is motivated by hate and the justification of violence to the targets of that hate. Jacobs is just an example who happens to be a journalist, which is one of the target groups. Muslims and students have also recently been victim to these attacks.

Need I remind you that you scoffed the victims of those attacks because the white supremacist attackers because they paid their security deposit? Or you were justifying stormfront having the right to force providers to host them. I don't know, you were making less sense than usual.

Maybe you legit don't see the violence. Because violence needs a living victim, and you don't see these victims as living beings that have rights. Because that's what you're conveying.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:31 am

Mentat wrote:I'm not playing to your goal posts. You also ignored half of what I specified (Liberals and Journalists) and missed the point: this new face is motivated by hate and the justification of violence to the targets of that hate. Jacobs is just an example who happens to be a journalist, which is one of the target groups. Muslims and students have also recently been victim to these attacks.
I already defined my context as journalists, several times.
Your characterization of my comment does not go unnoticed. I did not such thing.
because they paid their security deposit? Or you were justifying stormfront having the right to force providers to host them. I don't know, you were making less sense than usual.

Maybe you legit don't see the violence. Because violence needs a living victim, and you don't see these victims as living beings that have rights. Because that's what you're conveying.
I don't see evidence of GOP violence against journalists because you have not presented such.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:43 am

I already defined my context as journalists, several times.
You moved the goal post several times. Don't be mad when others don't play.
Your characterization of my comment does not go unnoticed. I did not such thing.
Justifying nazis gunning students down because they paid a security deposit isn't scoffing the victim? What world do you live in?
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:47 am

If you have no interest in a conversation just tell me, and I'll stop wasting the bandwidth.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Mentat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:03 am

Just showing that this was a lie. I think you've done a good enough job of establishing it, so I'd say we're done now.
Grammatron wrote:I will only speak for myself. Either I am not being clear, or you are arriving at a wrong conclusion. For example, the things that you listed that you do not like, I also do not like. And I do not think it's bad that I do not like those thugs, thus I would not think it's bad you would dislike those thugs.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 69771
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2853 times
Been thanked: 1093 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:16 pm

Now that Grammy is on the job, the feud with Mentat is more interesting than that other one. :mrgreen:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33066
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:25 pm

There's no feud. I'm just waiting for evidence of a claim, but instead I get feels and fear.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13551
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by WildCat » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:29 pm

Grammatron wrote:There's no feud. I'm just waiting for evidence of a claim, but instead I get feels and fear.
That's all he ever has, why would it change now?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj