Anyway, yes, you are doing exactly what @HMS_Irruncible said, in taking a benign statement, and stretching it way out to what you think it MIGHT mean, and then blasting him (her? I don’t know) for it.
Is there a reason that you are offended that they stopped at “kill” and not include disenfranchise? You are the one that brought it up, you did not have to put that there. That is what was being objected to, specifically, that you are making the presumption that this is what this poster would do.
Disenfranchise is really not much better, and is also something else that is not something that @Ascenray has proposed, it is just something that exists soley in your own mind.
And what is with the “of course” part, that’s more than a little presumptuous of you, as though this is what you were expecting. And the reason that you were expecting it is not because it is what he said, but what you took his benign statement, and stretched it to mean.
Your concern is noted.
I see nothing non-factual in @HMS_Irruncible’s post. I do see some unfounded accusations in yours.
Of course you have.
Facts not in evidence. I thought you were wanting to keep comments factual.
Ah, the 'ol, “If you don’t tolerate the intolerant, then you are no better then them” canard. Never gets old. Along with a hefty dose of “Not all conservatives”.
Okay folks, please look at the title of the thread. Yes? Please advise me if someone has modified it to say ‘Many/Most/Some’ conservatives believe they have the right to kill everyone else. No? Then please do not say I’m not giving persons posting to it without qualifiers an injustice.
I never believed it, but you people are trying to make me NOT VOTE AGAINST TRUMP.
So, nope, I don’t by your arguments HMS and k9briender. And if you were debating this, as this is Great Debates, you would kind of want to consider these statements. But honestly, this is a rant, and should be in IMHO or the pit. I point you back to my post 60 where HMS decided to post about my sarcastic comment about how he wants to fix the problems, after he made blanket statements like those above. I pointed out that he was doing the exact same thing he accused conservatives of.
But I’ve just posted several of Acsemray’s posts, and you have not commented on them earlier. Nor have you addressed that they are blanket statements. Your actions are not debates, they are nitpicking individual phrases you disagree with while ignoring the issues. And these actions are why so many people now feel both sides are the same in the political arena. Both sides are unwilling to ascribe any decent motives to the other. The few of us moderates don’t want to be associated with either of you.
I point you instead to my candidate Biden, who you know, doesn’t sink to this level of dead end exclusionism - and is willing to be a president to all Americans. You by your own statements, prefer the us vs them, so find your own Trump.
Boom. People who are conservative and don’t believe in killing. Or any of the people, many still republicans that have said they are voting for Biden. So, yeah, facts. While k9briender, all you still offer is opinions.
“MINNEAPOLIS – Three Minnesota congressmen are facing backlash over taking a commercial flight home from Washington, D.C., on Friday night just two days after they shared Air Force One with President Donald Trump.
U.S. Reps. Pete Stauber, Tom Emmer and Jim Hagedorn all were on the same Delta Airlines flight despite the airline’s restrictions on passengers recently exposed to COVID-19. Trump announced early Friday morning he had tested positive for the virus.
Delta’s policy says customers who know they were exposed to the virus in the past 14 days cannot travel on the company’s aircraft. The airline defines exposure as face-to-face contact with someone carrying the virus, or sustained contact for more than 15 minutes less than 6 feet apart.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minnesota-congressmen-flew-delta-flying-trump-73409585
This is the opposite of what happened. Rittenhouse was attempting to protect his community from people who were burning businesses and attacking people. He rendered first aid to several people before the mob started chasing him. He was treating others as family.
Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighborhood from criminals. He was involved in neighborhood watch to make his community safe.
Both these people were attacked for trying to help others and if they had not been armed they likely would have either been killed or severely hurt.
No, Rittenhouse was part of a vigilante mob invited by the police to intimidate peaceful protesters who were not “burning businesses” and weren’t “attacking people” until confronted by Rittenhouse’s group of armed thugs who were, let’s note, violating the same curfew the protesters were (and also that Rittenhouse wasn’t legally allowed to carry the weapon he was holding). After shooting someone, Rittenhouse simply walked off and was allowed to do so by the police, even as multiple people identified him as the shooter. So not only was Rittenhouse not “defending” anything, he was committing multiple crimes and being protected by the police while he was doing it.
But Martin wasn’t engaged in criminal behavior. He was just walking. And Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher not to follow or confront Martin. So unless you’re claiming that Zimmerman was “making his community safe” from random black people, he had no cause to confront or escalate.
But thank you for confirming that you are willing to support violent actions by armed criminals, as long as you can craft an appropriate narrative to justify it.
This is called ‘vigilantism’ and it’s why he is facing charges, as he should.
When you kill other people, you don’t get to claim “treating others like family.” Slapping a bandaid on somebody doesn’t give you the right to murder somebody else.
Had they stayed home and not tried to stick their little oar in the boat parade, they’d have been absolutely fine. You can’t go looking for trouble and then bleat “buh buh they attacked me”.