Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That was true, until...


Seriously perfect timing.

It’s like a parent telling a little kid. Don’t climb in to the gorilla cage you will get attacked.

You would blame the parent for radicalizing the gorilla. I would say it’s stating the obvious.

Actions have consequences. It’s doesn’t clash with any of my morals or values for someone to speak the truth.

But keep on keeping on

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-09-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That was true, until...


Seriously perfect timing.

Leeeeeroy Jenkins

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 05:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So Schumer warning them that forcing women to birth babies they don’t want will have consequences is what radicalized this man?

I call that pointing out the obvious

You will pay the price. You won't know what hit you. You, specific person A and specific person B.

There's an exercise, imagine Trump had used that kind of langugage against a political opponent of his and what our reaction would be; shouldn't take that much imagination really. Or an NRA spokesperson, saying 'Mr. Schumer, if you allow stricter gun laws there will be a price to pay for you; you won't know what hit you.'

And if then someone were actually out to kill Schumer after this, people sure would lay some blame on the NRA. Imho understandably so. Same moral rules need to apply for the real example at hand.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 05:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: You will pay the price. You won't know what hit you. You, specific person A and specific person B.

There's an exercise, imagine Trump had used that kind of langugage against a political opponent of his and what our reaction would be; shouldn't take that much imagination really. Or an NRA spokesperson, saying 'Mr. Schumer, if you allow stricter gun laws there will be a price to pay for you; you won't know what hit you.'

And if then someone were actually out to kill Schumer after this, people sure would lay some blame on the NRA. Imho understandably so. Same moral rules need to apply for the real example at hand.

If the Supreme Court was packed with liberals and they were about to over turn the 2nd amendment and trump said words along those lines. He would be in the right. Stating the obvious

[NATI BENGALS]

There is no sugar coating it. Sorry life is so hard. Taking away women’s right to choose is a really big deal and people take it seriously.

I guess I’m an outlier since I comprehend this.

It doesn’t take some politician who most people don’t like saying a few words back in 2020 to get people fired up over this issue is my point.

[NATI BENGALS]

Cop tells a suspect stop or I’ll shoot.

Is that a threat or a warning?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 06:10 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Cop tells a suspect stop or I’ll shoot.

Is that a threat or a warning?

Both.

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 06:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There is no sugar coating it. Sorry life is so hard. Taking away women’s right to choose is a really big deal and people take it seriously.

I guess I’m an outlier since I comprehend this.

It doesn’t take some politician who most people don’t like saying a few words back in 2020 to get people fired up over this issue is my point.

Maybe not, true. I too am under the impression that Schumer doesn't exactly excite many people, for sure not nearly the same way than Trump can. If I had to guess I'd wager that this person trying to attack Kavanaugh wasn't directly motivated by anything Schumer said.

But still, the way Schumer stated the obvious (In principle I agree on that as well) was just wrong and imho lost Democrats some moral highground that we both want them to have. Even Schumer himself, and maybe he deserves some credit for that, seemed to realize that. "I should not have used the words I used", he said. Which makes me wonder even more though why you can't reach the verdict that Schumer himself apparently reached.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Both.

Agree.

I didn’t hear Schumer say he was going to do anything. Pretty big difference imo.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe not, true. I too am under the impression that Schumer doesn't exactly excite many people, for sure not nearly the same way than Trump can. If I had to guess I'd wager that this person trying to attack Kavanaugh wasn't directly motivated by anything Schumer said.

But still, the way Schumer stated the obvious (In principle I agree on that as well) was just wrong and imho lost Democrats some moral highground that we both want them to have. Even Schumer himself, and maybe he deserves some credit for that, seemed to realize that. "I should not have used the words I used", he said. Which makes me wonder even more though why you can't reach the verdict that Schumer himself apparently reached.

A politician walking back a statement because of a media shitstorm doesn’t change my opinion.

Blaming Schumer for an attempted hit on a scotus member in 2022 because of these few lines Schumer said this one time in 2020 and equating it to tucker and a hate crime killing is outlandish.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 06:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Agree.

I didn’t hear Schumer say he was going to do anything. Pretty big difference imo.

I don't recall Trump saying he'd personally do anything.  But your fellows certainly had a brown alert in their pants when he stated, "stand back and stand by."

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-09-2022, 09:36 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Speaking out against oppression and speaking out against imagined oppression should not carry the same weight and how people respond to each should not be compared. If we strip away the important detail of whether the threat described is real, we strip away all relevance and meaning from the topic.

Except what you consider oppression and imagined oppression is the exact opposite for them. 

They'll contend that overturning RVW doesn't stop a womens right to an abortion (actually, they'll tell you that it's not a right because it isnt in the Constitution) it just pushes the decision to the state level. They'll also tell you about Democrats trying to stop their right to bear arms. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 06:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't recall Trump saying he'd personally do anything.  But your fellows certainly had a brown alert in their pants when he stated, "stand back and stand by."

oh that's right. he said that to the group that ended up assaulting the capital didnt he?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 07:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: oh that's right. he said that to the group that ended up assaulting the capital didnt he?

Agree.


I didn’t hear Trump say he was going to do anything. Pretty big difference imo.

[CJD]

(06-09-2022, 07:15 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Except what you consider oppression and imagined oppression is the exact opposite for them. 

They'll contend that overturning RVW doesn't stop a womens right to an abortion (actually, they'll tell you that it's not a right because it isnt in the Constitution) it just pushes the decision to the state level. They'll also tell you about Democrats trying to stop their right to bear arms. 

Well sure. But that doesn't make them correct. Just because they deny reality doesn't mean that we should entertain their delusions as if they are as equally viable as reality. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-09-2022, 07:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agree.


I didn’t hear Trump say he was going to do anything. Pretty big difference imo.

Trump constantly says he's going to do stuff.  Maybe I'm missing some context here. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2022, 12:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump constantly says he's going to do stuff.  Maybe I'm missing some context here. 

Read the whole exchange, I have confidence you'll figure it out.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-10-2022, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Read the whole exchange, I have confidence you'll figure it out.  

I went back a few messages and I still don't get it but I'm probably more inclined to think the commander in chief telling a group that expresses desires for violence to stand by is more blatant than most. 

Trump got what he wanted without asking for it?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2022, 01:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I went back a few messages and I still don't get it but I'm probably more inclined to think the commander in chief telling a group that expresses desires for violence to stand by is more blatant than most. 

Trump got what he wanted without asking for it?  

I'm repeating his own words to him as he defeated his own argument.

[*Nately120*]

(06-10-2022, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm repeating his own words to him as he defeated his own argument.

Ah gotcha.  Side note, the wife and I were walking down the street the other day and a hooker asked me if I was looking for a good time and I told her to stand by.