Gunman wounds several at congressional baseball practice in Virginia

[mudslag]

2 hours ago, DocM said:

As I said: libs/Dems have been cranking up the volume and hate speech online since 2200 EDT Nov. 8, 2016. Secret service has had to get involved more times than just Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg and the Julius Caesar play - a lot more

 

Time to dial it back, loudly..

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/337782-gop-rep-received-threatening-email-with-subject-line-one-down-216-to-go-after

 

 

 

 

Oh please, that happens with ever POTUS. There are always idiots that say stupid stuff that require the SS to take a look. None of that changes one bit that you're being hypocritical about what I stated earlier. 

[hagjohn]

This is exactly what the Russians wanted when they attacked our democracy in the 2016 election. They wanted discord. If we are fighting each other, we are not fighting against them.

[ctebah]

3 minutes ago, hagjohn said:

This is exactly what the Russians wanted when they attacked our democracy in the 2016 election. They wanted discord. If we are fighting each other, we are not fighting against them.

It's about time.  The US has been attacking other democracies for ages now.  Karma finally caught up.

[Rippleman]

There are 5 people on this forum that I can totally see trying to pull a stunt like this. Lets see if they reply to try to defend themselves and their thoughts.

[wakjak]

1 hour ago, Rippleman said:

There are 5 people on this forum that I can totally see trying to pull a stunt like this. Lets see if they reply to try to defend themselves and their thoughts.

Oh do make your list for us to hear their commentary.

[Nerd Rage]

1 hour ago, Rippleman said:

There are 5 people on this forum that I can totally see trying to pull a stunt like this. Lets see if they reply to try to defend themselves and their thoughts.

you got one already, plan worked!

[wakjak]

Just now, Nerd Rage said:

you got one already, plan worked!

Is there a post missing? I don't see anyone defending themselves or their thoughts..

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 hours ago, Rippleman said:

There are 5 people on this forum that I can totally see trying to pull a stunt like this. Lets see if they reply to try to defend themselves and their thoughts.

Which of the three precogs are you?   Agatha, Michael, or Matthew?

 

[DocM]

4 hours ago, hagjohn said:

You are starting to sound as warped as the shooter. It was Trump who egged on his supporters to attack protesters, all through the election.

Only after Dem operatives harassed, and attacked, his supporters at events, and they disrupted those events enough that some had to be removed by the Secret Service. 100% a DNC financed black op worth of Saul Alinsky.

 

Quote

LHe aligned himself with the KKK and other hate groups.

They did not solicit that KKK support, and disavowed t.

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/02/kkk-newspaper-backs-donald-trump/

 

Quote

The endless attacks for 8 years on the first black president. What do you expect would happen? When you marginalize people long enough, they strike back. I think it's wrong but that's what happens.

"MOMMIE!! HE MADE ME DO IT!!!"

 

Didn't wash with our 3 year olds, won't wash now. Some on the right behaved badly, but they didn't shoot at Obama or the Democrat Congress - as short a time as it lasted due to its massive overreaches. Also notable s he shot them on Trump's birthday. Were they surrogates? 

 

 'Resist' has lost its marbles.

 

Quote

Save your worthless words. The same people who are complaining today are the same people who said nothing when it was Obama and the left getting threats. Nobody is buying them.

 

GOTO answer #3

Edited June 15, 2017 by DocM

[Shiranui]

14 hours ago, mudslag said:

Are you really whining about a sig?

People actually have sigs turned on? Good Lord!

[TPreston]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

Didn't wash with our 3 year olds, won't wash now. Some on the right behaved badly, but they didn't shoot at Obama or the Democrat Congress - as short a time as it lasted due to its massive overreaches. Also notable s he shot them on Trump's birthday. Were they surrogates? 

 

 'Resist' has lost its marbles.

They did shoot stab and kill minority's if we can blame the left for this then we can blame the right for that.  Not that we should because its asinine like you blaming democrats for this.

[Emn1ty]

9 hours ago, hagjohn said:

1. It was Trump who egged on his supporters to attack protesters, all through the election.\

2. He aligned himself with the KKK and other hate groups.

3. The endless attacks for 8 years on the first black president.

4. What do you expect would happen? When you marginalize people long enough, they strike back. I think it's wrong but that's what happens.

1. No, he didn't.

2. Again, no he didn't.

3. Not sure what this has to do with anything, there's nothing against being critical of a president. Unless of course you're trying to suggest that because Obama was the first black President he couldn't be criticized (or by that nature, any criticism of him was expressly because he was black)?

4. Except all the blame doesn't go to Trump on this one. This person wasn't thinking rationally, so don't attempt rationalize or justify his actions.

 

The blame for this goes to one person and one person alone; the shooter.

[hagjohn]

38 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

1. No, he didn't.

2. Again, no he didn't.

3. Not sure what this has to do with anything, there's nothing against being critical of a president. Unless of course you're trying to suggest that because Obama was the first black President he couldn't be criticized (or by that nature, any criticism of him was expressly because he was black)?

4. Except all the blame doesn't go to Trump on this one. This person wasn't thinking rationally, so don't attempt rationalize or justify his actions.

 

The blame for this goes to one person and one person alone; the shooter.

Yeah, keep living in your dream world. There are videos as evidence. If you choose not to believe because you are a hard head, that is your choice but I tend to live in reality. Just because Trump didn't say kill the protesters, doesn't mean he didn't promote violence against them.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

[+primortal Subscriber²]

13 hours ago, PGHammer said:

Who said anything about President Trump, TPreston - other than you and primortal (in an attempt to deflect)?

You are basically playing "blame the victim" by painting the GOP Congressman who was critically wounded and the other GOP Congresspersons that were practicing for the game as the guilty parties.  That is not logical one whit.  Do you REALLY think that ANY branch of government should literally surrender to blackmail-at-gunpoint?  That is EXACTLY what such acts amount to - it would make just as much sense to surrender to the Klan - which even THEY would not dare expect.  For that matter, read President Trump's comments ABOUT the shooting - since you seem so sure that they are a match in a tinderbox.

First thanks for not mentioning me so I wouldn't see this post....

 

You love putting words in peoples mouth don't you?  I never blamed the victim if you read my post correctly; those are your own words not mine.  I blamed the actions of the administration and being you like splitting hairs, congress as well.

 

Who said anything about blackmail? Sounds like you're speculating again.  How does a shooting amount to "blackmail-at-gunpoint"?  So every mass shooting is basically blackmail-at-gunpoint?

 

Let me give you back your own advice

21 hours ago, PGHammer said:

dial back the rhetoric - or adjust your meds;

 

[Emn1ty]

5 hours ago, hagjohn said:

Yeah, keep living in your dream world. There are videos as evidence. If you choose not to believe because you are a hard head, that is your choice but I tend to live in reality. Just because Trump didn't say kill the protesters, doesn't mean he didn't promote violence against them.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

I don't really feel like diving into this again, but pretty much all of this was statements taken out of context and twisted. I've already spent hours discussing this while the campaign was going. If you still believe that then I doubt there's any chance of convincing you otherwise. However my aim isn't to convince you, it's to state the facts. And the fact is those things aren't true. The irony is, I watched all the video evidence when it happened. And every article, despite posting he full context of his statements in video form, still took him out of context or exaggerated his statements.

 

He certainly had a brash and unpolished way of speaking, but this is no different than that recent snippet of the Democrat who said "we should fight them in the streets", except with almost every single statement Trump made.

[hagjohn]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I don't really feel like diving into this again, but pretty much all of this was statements taken out of context and twisted. I've already spent hours discussing this while the campaign was going. If you still believe that then I doubt there's any chance of convincing you otherwise. However my aim isn't to convince you, it's to state the facts. And the fact is those things aren't true. The irony is, I watched all the video evidence when it happened. And every article, despite posting he full context of his statements in video form, still took him out of context or exaggerated his statements.

 

He certainly had a brash and unpolished way of speaking, but this is no different than that recent snippet of the Democrat who said "we should fight them in the streets", except with almost every single statement Trump made.

Out of context, right... ROFL... You are right about dropping it, it's hard to have a discussion when one of them lives on Fantasy Island. /s

[Emn1ty]

Just now, hagjohn said:

Out of context, right... ROFL... You are right about dropping it, it's hard to have a discussion when one of them lives on Fantasy Island. /s

It's even more difficult to have a discussion when one doesn't bring anything but ad hominem with them. You can dismiss my statements all day as "fantasy island", doesn't make you anymore correct. I'll be a little more realistic, and just point out the rose-colored glasses you're wearing (rose-colored in regards to interpreting things that Trump has said in the most incriminating way possible).

 

But alas, what's the point. I'm on fantasy island where supposedly people don't have to actually formulate a coherent argument beyond shallow dismissal of other's statements and linking to a news article like it will do the arguing for them. And I'm sure nothing short of me debunking each and every little slide on that article will shed any light on this; and even if I did that (again, as I've already done it previously as each of these stories came out) you'd just "forget" it and start asserting that it's the truth again in another six months because you've already concluded that any other view of his statements other than the one you've subscribed to is "fantasy island".

[hagjohn]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

It's even more difficult to have a discussion when one doesn't bring anything but ad hominem with them. You can dismiss my statements all day as "fantasy island", doesn't make you anymore correct. I'll be a little more realistic, and just point out the rose-colored glasses you're wearing (rose-colored in regards to interpreting things that Trump has said in the most incriminating way possible).

 

But alas, what's the point. I'm on fantasy island where supposedly people don't have to actually formulate a coherent argument beyond shallow dismissal of other's statements and linking to a news article like it will do the arguing for them. And I'm sure nothing short of me debunking each and every little slide on that article will shed any light on this; and even if I did that (again, as I've already done it previously as each of these stories came out) you'd just "forget" it and start asserting that it's the truth again in another six months because you've already concluded that any other view of his statements other than the one you've subscribed to is "fantasy island".

If he wasn't advocating violence, then why did he offer to pay the legal bills? What was he supporting that would need lawyers?

[wakjak]

11 minutes ago, hagjohn said:

If he wasn't advocating violence, then why did he offer to pay the legal bills? What was he supporting that would need lawyers?

He was just joking! You shouldn't take him seriously! you're taking him out of context!

 

did I cover all the angles?

[hagjohn]

11 minutes ago, wakjak said:

He was just joking! You shouldn't take him seriously! you're taking him out of context!

 

did I cover all the angles?

All of them except one. The real angle. If you have to start a sentence/statement with "Well, he meant to say", that should tell you something. It is time for everyone to stop spinning everything and start looking at what these people actually say, not what we want them to say... that goes for left, center, right.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

20 hours ago, hagjohn said:

This is exactly what the Russians wanted when they attacked our democracy in the 2016 election. 

Got any proof? Or have you been listening to McCain the Insane and Mad Dog Mattis too much lately?

 

Contrary to what the anti-Trump Russophobic media has been telling you, the last thing the Russians want is a social unrest in the most powerful nuclear-armed nation on the planet.

[DocM]

3 hours ago, hagjohn said:

....It is time for everyone to stop spinning everything and start looking at what these people actually say, not what we want them to say... that goes for left, center, right.

In that vein, are you denying that DNC operatives, working through affiliated groups, intentionally provoked Trump supporters at their rallies? Yes or no will do.

 

Because if they did, then that violence would not have occurred without the intentional provocation. That makes it the DNC's fault, the same as kicking a junkyard dog then complaining you got bit.

[Rippleman]

21 hours ago, hagjohn said:

It was Trump who egged on his supporters to attack protesters, all through the election. He aligned himself with the KKK and other hate groups.

Puff Puff Pass

[Emn1ty]

4 hours ago, hagjohn said:

If he wasn't advocating violence, then why did he offer to pay the legal bills? What was he supporting that would need lawyers?

Here's the full quote from that statement:

 

Quote

"So I got a little notice in case you see. The security guys, we have wonderful security guys. They said Mr. Trump, there may be someone with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see someone ready to throw a tomato knock the crap out of them would you? Seriously. Kay, just knock the hell... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise." - Donald J. Trump

To me, I don't see this as serious. Mostly because of the use of the trope throwing tomatoes. But then again, I'm not dead set on taking everything Trump says literally as some are. Especially since just after the comment it got some applause and even laughter which to me, given the context, it wasn't meant to be taken literally and no one did take it literally.

 

But I guess if we like to ignore the context of things, lets take Kaine's words here.

 

Quote

“What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box,” Kaine said. “And now there’s the momentum to be able to do this.” - Kaine

Here he explicitly says "fight them in the streets". And while the context implies that fight them is fight them through the process, he offers absolutely no clarification on what fight them in the streets means. So it's open to some level of interpretation, and if we apply the "worst possible" interpretation of this statement it could be interpreted as fight them physically (and guess what, we have seen a lot of violent protests that demonstrate that interpretation).

 

However, unlike Kaine's words, we didn't see anything at all come of that "knock the crap out of them" statement other than articles being written about how inflammatory it was. Yet when we look at Kaine's words, everyone is an apologist and wants to argue how that's not what he actually meant.

 

According to you, both Kaine and Trump meant to the worst possible interpretations of their words simply because once you've made that assertion anyone who says "well he actually meant..." automatically has no argument regardless of how reasonable or logical their explanation of their interpretation is.

 

Personally, I don't think either of them meant it in the way people and some parts of the MSM are portraying it as.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Here's the full quote from that statement:

 

To me, I don't see this as serious. Mostly because of the use of the trope throwing tomatoes. But then again, I'm not dead set on taking everything Trump says literally as some are. Especially since just after the comment it got some applause and even laughter which to me, given the context, it wasn't meant to be taken literally and no one did take it literally.

 

But I guess if we like to ignore the context of things, lets take Kaine's words here.

 

Here he explicitly says "fight them in the streets". And while the context implies that fight them is fight them through the process, he offers absolutely no clarification on what fight them in the streets means. So it's open to some level of interpretation, and if we apply the "worst possible" interpretation of this statement it could be interpreted as fight them physically (and guess what, we have seen a lot of violent protests that demonstrate that interpretation).

 

However, unlike Kaine's words, we didn't see anything at all come of that "knock the crap out of them" statement other than articles being written about how inflammatory it was. Yet when we look at Kaine's words, everyone is an apologist and wants to argue how that's not what he actually meant.

 

According to you, both Kaine and Trump meant to the worst possible interpretations of their words simply because once you've made that assertion anyone who says "well he actually meant..." automatically has no argument regardless of how reasonable or logical their explanation of their interpretation is.

 

Personally, I don't think either of them meant it in the way people and some parts of the MSM are portraying it as.

 

In other words, we should take what POTUS Trump says with a grain of salt.

 

Except I can't find a grain big enough...