Man arrested, accused of threatening to kill CNN employees

[GMDino]

(01-26-2018, 01:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: J.D. Salinger killed John Lennon.  Just saying.

Salinger told people publicly that Lennon was an enemy of the state? 

All seriousness aside:  Crazy people with fixate on things that feed their crazy.  People can be set up of anything in the right time and the right circumstance. 

The difference here is that Trump not only fed that crazy, but continues to with no acknowledgement that his rhetoric is over the top and inflammatory.  

"Hyperbole", if you will.

Trump provides specific targets to hate.  Sometimes by name.  And ties them to destroying what makes america "great".

So it's not Trump's fault the guy was crazy enough to act out violently (or threaten to at least) but he needs to see what he says/tweets and does as POTUS has a much larger effect that just making his morning poop easier.

[fredtoast]

People who deny the existence of inflammatory rhetoric are either naive or intentionally lying to cover for someone.

It is against the law to "incite violence" with language. Anyone familiar with the legal system should be aware of this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Salinger told people publicly that Lennon was an enemy of the state? 

All seriousness aside:  Crazy people with fixate on things that feed their crazy.  People can be set up of anything in the right time and the right circumstance. 

The difference here is that Trump not only fed that crazy, but continues to with no acknowledgement that his rhetoric is over the top and inflammatory.  

"Hyperbole", if you will.

Trump provides specific targets to hate.  Sometimes by name.  And ties them to destroying what makes america "great".

So it's not Trump's fault the guy was crazy enough to act out violently (or threaten to at least) but he needs to see what he says/tweets and does as POTUS has a much larger effect that just making his morning poop easier.

Trump is going to be Trump, this will not change.  Is his rhetoric "over the top" is the real question.  As this relies solely on the subjective opinion of the person answering there is no definitive answer.  What we can say, definitively, is that individual adults are responsible for their own actions.  What you attempted to imply with this thread, and please don't waste anyone's time with denials, could easily be used against any controversial person or group.  There are more than a handful of Democrats who labeled the presidential election "illegitimate" and talked about impeaching Trump the day after he was elected.  Could not this very easily be interpreted by the less mentally stable among us as a statement that our nation has been usurped by a tyrant?  Could not this language have very easily been the final straw for the person who attempted to murder numerous GOP congresspeople?  Your assertions smack of the type of "free speech" laws they have in Europe where the speech is very much not free. 

In the post of mine regarding the Scalise shooting, I was very careful to point out that I was calling out those who advocated violence.  The "it's ok to punch a Nazi" or the people like Yvette Falarca, and those who refuse to condemn them.  There is a world of difference between calling someone names, no matter how derogatory, and advocating for violence.

(01-26-2018, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People who deny the existence of inflammatory rhetoric are either naive or intentionally lying to cover for someone.

It is against the law to "incite violence" with language.  Anyone familiar with the legal system should be aware of this.

Typical lawyer babble and obfuscation.  Who is denying the existence of inflammatory rhetoric?  Who has claimed that it is not against the law to "incite violence"?  Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation but irrelevancies. 

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Typical lawyer babble and obfuscation.  Who is denying the existence of inflammatory rhetoric?  Who has claimed that it is not against the law to "incite violence"?  Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation but irrelevancies. 

(01-24-2018, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry kids, I'm in the "adults are responsible for their own actions" camp. 

How can you agree that it is against the law to incite violence with language at the same time that you don't hold the speaker responsible for the violence committed by someone else?

These seem to be contradictory positions because "inciting violence" is holding someone responsible for the actions committed by another person 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can you agree that it is against the law to incite violence with language at the same time that you don't hold the speaker responsible for the violence committed by someone else?

These seem to be contradictory positions because "inciting violence" is holding someone responsible for the actions committed by another person 

A person with a reasonable grasp of the English language could have answered this question by actually reading the thread they just posted in.  Stop wasting our time.

[GMDino]

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump is going to be Trump, this will not change.  Is his rhetoric "over the top" is the real question.  As this relies solely on the subjective opinion of the person answering there is no definitive answer. 

I think any President, or adult, that tweets insulting names to other adults is over the top. Maybe others have a higher threshold.

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What we can say, definitively, is that individual adults are responsible for their own actions.

Absolutely. I've agreed with that the entire time. Although I feel that also includes Trump CONTINUING to be inflammatory after the event.

 

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you attempted to imply with this thread, and please don't waste anyone's time with denials, could easily be used against any controversial person or group.

Way off on your interpretation of the post. But I know you hate the "w" word.

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are more than a handful of Democrats who labeled the presidential election "illegitimate" and talked about impeaching Trump the day after he was elected.  Could not this very easily be interpreted by the less mentally stable among us as a statement that our nation has been usurped by a tyrant?  Could not this language have very easily been the final straw for the person who attempted to murder numerous GOP congresspeople?  Your assertions smack of the type of "free speech" laws they have in Europe where the speech is very much not free. 

Those who called Trump illegitimate or wanted to impeach day one are what you would call "fringe posters".

As I said: What sets people off sets them off. I could say Ben and Jerry's Ice cream deliberately turns people gay and if some homophobe uses that as an excuse to blow up their plant I am not responsible for THEIR actions. I am responsible for saying things that are "over the top" and inflammatory.

And if I CONTINUE to do that I must understand that I am encouraging those kind of reactions.

(01-26-2018, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In the post of mine regarding the Scalise shooting, I was very careful to point out that I was calling out those who advocated violence.  The "it's ok to punch a Nazi" or the people like Yvette Falarca, and those who refuse to condemn them.  There is a world of difference between calling someone names, no matter how derogatory, and advocating for violence.

And yet Trump HAS advocated for violence against those who disagree with him. Repeatedly.

Which is separate and above this incident.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 01:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Those who called Trump illegitimate or wanted to impeach day one are what you would call "fringe posters".

So members of Congress are "fringe posters"? 

Quote:And yet Trump HAS advocated for violence against those who disagree with him.  Repeatedly.

Which is separate and above this incident.

I was waiting for this.  Examples please.

[*Nately120*]

(01-24-2018, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump, he brings out the worst in people.


A literal argument made on this board by OP btw.

In all fairness, one of Trump's biggest selling points is that he makes lots of people very angry.  I'm expecting the 2020 election to be two candidates that represent the biggest middle finger each side can stick to the other.

[GMDino]

(01-26-2018, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So members of Congress are "fringe posters"? 

I was referring to those on this board.

(01-26-2018, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was waiting for this.  Examples please.

You're kidding that you don't know...right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/05/sarah-huckabee-sanders/has-donald-trump-never-promoted-or-encouraged-viol/

That's the easiest link as it has multiple events linked in one article.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 01:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, one of Trump's biggest selling points is that he makes lots of people very angry.  I'm expecting the 2020 election to be two candidates that represent the biggest middle finger each side can stick to the other.

Haha, on this we completely agree.

(01-26-2018, 01:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was referring to those on this board.

I wasn't as was clear from my post.

Quote:You're kidding that you don't know...right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/05/sarah-huckabee-sanders/has-donald-trump-never-promoted-or-encouraged-viol/

That's the easiest link as it has multiple events linked in one article.

I was waiting for this.  You have one example by your source's own admission, and it occurred two years ago.

[GMDino]

(01-26-2018, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was waiting for this.  You have one example by your source's own admission, and it occurred two years ago.

Okay...you don't want to read it.  That's fine.  But you're wrong.  Thanks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay...you don't want to read it.  That's fine.  But you're wrong.  Thanks.

I did read it.  By the source's own admission they have only one example.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was waiting for this.  You have one example by your source's own admission, and it occurred two years ago.

Just curious, but how many times does he have to do it for you to think it is unacceptable?

20?

30?

100?

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A person with a reasonable grasp of the English language could have answered this question by actually reading the thread they just posted in.  Stop wasting our time.

Actually it was impossible for me to figure it out because you made contradictory statements.

How do I know which one you really meant?  Because if you don't believe in holding someone else responsible for the actions of another you can't believe in the crime of inciting violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it was impossible for me to figure it out because you made contradictory statements.

No, I did not.  Feel free to point out otherwise if you continue to believe differently.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 04:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I did not.  Feel free to point out otherwise if you continue to believe differently.

I already did point it out.  You edited it from my post that you quoted.

(01-26-2018, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: if you don't believe in holding someone else responsible for the actions of another you can't believe in the crime of inciting violence.

Maybe I just misunderstood you?  Are you saying that you know the law exists but you are opposed to it?