But don't call them violent thugs

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:31 pm

Mentat wrote:So a GOP leader literally calling to shoot somebody isn't calling for murder, but the random "I want blood" post was proof democrats want to commit mass murder? Your own words.
Well firs of all that's not what happened at all.

"A Montana Republican party official “would have shot” Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs if he had approached her as he did Greg Gianforte, who assaulted Jacobs one day before he was elected to Congress."

Break down the syntax here

WOULD....IF

There are several qualifying conditions that within the context of the story indicate percieved threat and assault. It could be the comic absurdity of South Park "HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!" type of a qualifying condition, but not a cold blooded call for political murder.

And I am not just sarcastically splitting hairs here. It's one thing where politicians call for violence with opposition, it's another where violent act is downplayed based on context.

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 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:41 pm

That is complete bullshit. The attack happened during a discussion. Gianforte didn't attack on first sight or self defense. He was just in the same room.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:43 pm

Mentat wrote:That is complete bullshit. The attack happened during a discussion. Gianforte didn't attack on first sight or self defense. He was just in the same room.
So how does that in any way refute my point?

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 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:46 pm

Because the "He came at me" is complete BS. How about I said I would shoot you if you were in the same room as I? How is that not a death threat?
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:48 pm

Mentat wrote:Because the "He came at me" is complete BS. How about I said I would shoot you if you were in the same room as I? How is that not a death threat?
But that's part of the qualifier. If it's complete BS then no one gets shot.

Just a simple 'if' statement.

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 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:52 pm

The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67647
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3424 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Doctor X » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:53 pm

Do consider the new Make No Law podcast.

Now keep it down, you might wake up Carr.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:55 pm

Mentat wrote:The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
If the reporter did nothing, then the reporter does not get shot in this hypothetical scenario based on foundation of hyperbole and conjecture.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:56 pm

Doctor X wrote:Do consider the new Make No Law podcast.

Now keep it down, you might wake up Carr.

--J.D.
Not sure how Boss feels about broken links...

User avatar
Boss Paul
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:30 am
Title: Boss
Location: Florida Corrections
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Boss Paul » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:08 pm

Image
Get the wax outta your ears!

You call the Captain "Captain!"

And you call the rest of us "Boss," you hear?!

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67647
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3424 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Doctor X » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:10 pm

I wish you'd stop being so good to My Mom me, Gram. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

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 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:14 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
If the reporter did nothing, then the reporter does not get shot in this hypothetical scenario based on foundation of hyperbole and conjecture.
Yeah, and if that reporter did nothing, then that reporter did not get assaulted. Except he did.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:38 pm

Mentat wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
If the reporter did nothing, then the reporter does not get shot in this hypothetical scenario based on foundation of hyperbole and conjecture.
Yeah, and if that reporter did nothing, then that reporter did not get assaulted. Except he did.
That point is irrelevant to the OP

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:47 pm

Doctor X wrote:I wish you'd stop being so good to My Mom me, Gram. . . .

--J.D.
I am a river

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 12:35 am

Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
If the reporter did nothing, then the reporter does not get shot in this hypothetical scenario based on foundation of hyperbole and conjecture.
Yeah, and if that reporter did nothing, then that reporter did not get assaulted. Except he did.
That point is irrelevant to the OP
Yes it is. She's saying that if she were in the same position as Gianforte, she would have shot Jacobs instead of just attacking him. Plain and simple.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:07 am

Mentat wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote:The qualifier is being in the same room. That's all the reporter did, and he got assaulted for it. This idiot wanted to outright shoot him.
If the reporter did nothing, then the reporter does not get shot in this hypothetical scenario based on foundation of hyperbole and conjecture.
Yeah, and if that reporter did nothing, then that reporter did not get assaulted. Except he did.
That point is irrelevant to the OP
Yes it is. She's saying that if she were in the same position as Gianforte, she would have shot Jacobs instead of just attacking him. Plain and simple.
Not really.

"If that kid had done to me what he did to Greg, I would have shot him"

Indicates SHE thinks THE REPORTER did something.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33579
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1742 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:13 am

Now, some may ask, what did she think the reporter did?
Tonight, as Greg was giving a separate interview in a private office, The Guardian's Ben Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg's face, and began asking badgering questions. Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg's wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It's unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.
Now in my book, that doesn't justify battery or assault, much less shooting someone. Telling people you were going to shoot someone if they will be assholes is also not a smart thing to do. However, this does lay out a set of circumstances in which Karen Marshall, vice-president of programs for Gallatin County Republican Women, would shoot someone.

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 1:32 am

Except Gianforte's story was debunked almost immediately by both eye witnesses and a live audio recording - in May. Marshall's threat came in October, long after Gianforte was charged and admitted to being the one who attacked unprovoked.
However, in his letter to Jacobs on Wednesday, Gianforte appeared to make reference to his campaign’s erroneous statement.

“Notwithstanding anyone’s statements to the contrary, you did not initiate any physical contact with me, and I had no right to assault you,” he wrote. “I am sorry for what I did and the unwanted notoriety this has created for you. I take full responsibility.”
So again, that's complete bullshit.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22179
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 374 times
Been thanked: 401 times

Re: But don't call them violent thugs

Post by gnome » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:52 am

The slim edge of doubt that can carry Karen through is if she accepted the other version of events, then at least she is not stating an intention to harm someone who did nothing.

She might be lying about what she thinks, but can we know?
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

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 2:01 am

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. 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. In which case is still a threat, because in her own mind Jacobs was deserving to be dealt with violently anyways.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?