Montana does have a stand your ground law. Seems to me that the journalist would have been perfectly justified in defending himself with lethal means. When a guy’s hands are around your throat, you shoot first.
But then you don’t get to ask anymore questions, even if they are softballs.
I don’t buy Bricker’s line about the MSM being overly mean to Trump. But you guys are still not getting it. “Talk radio” is not news. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are political advocates, not objective journalists. Neither is trying to be the NYT.
I think this is an outdated mode of thought.
The news landscape is expanded compared to what it used to be. It’s not just traditional sources like newspapers coupled to their editorial boards and straight news broadcasts with sterile, wolf blitzer like hosts.
-It’s talk radio
-It’s online “perspective” focused news sites like salon, slate, vox, breitbart, daily kos, townhall, redstate
-It’s cable news networks
-It’s youtube personalities and networks like tyt, louder with crowder, sargon of akkad, kraut and tea, secular talk (too many to list, this area of general political and social and societal commentary is a vast wilderness)
-It’s reddit threads and other online forums
-online hard nose politics sites like politico and thehill
-It’s comedy shows like the daily show and the much superior Real Time with Bill Maher show
And more, so much more.
People get news from a mix of all those above, and likely more I have yet to think of. One of the conservative hosts I’ve come to loathe based on how hysterical he’s become, Dennis Prager, launched a youtube channel called prageru to expand his reach and message. He brags on his radio show about how a majority of his viewers are under their 30s (that’s youtube).
News is NOT being propagated via traditional vectors. Outfits like the new york times and the wallstreet journal and the washington post may be the more traditional and legitimate news sources since they do the actual reporting and investigations much of the time, but WHERE and HOW people actually receive their news is FAR more vast than those narrow slots. And that matters as much if not more than ever today. I don’t have any numbers to quantify things, but I’d imagine most people get news from filtered sources vs straight from the source style news sources today, or at the very least, some mix.
For myself?
I frequent:
politico
thehill
talk radio (up to the point where I need to shut it off after hearing too much drivel without any counter - not into conservative circle jerks)
youtube personalities
real time bill maher
Poster is often accused, incorrectly, of complaining about liberal hypocrisy.
Nor is this an effort to deflect attention. It’s an effort to expose the actual argument being offered: not that “criminal actions are bad,” but rather “criminal actions are much worse when done by people who we politically oppose.”
Nor have I selectively edited any quotes.
In short, your post is a collection of untruths.
But keep in mind that this whole train of thought started wrt Trump vilifying the news sources. And he vilified the NYT and the WaPo, not Daily Kos or ThinkProgress. Bricker thinks the NYT and the WaPo were mean to Trump. I disagree, but it’s not really germane, in this context, to bring up Limbaugh or the rest of the talk-radio gab fest.
In my opinion, a jailed Congressman should at a minimum donate his salary to charity during the time he is jailed.
Now, again pointing out that a first-offense misdemeanor assault conviction simply does not get jail time, so we’re discussing a hypothetical that is not realistically based on the extant factual situation in play . . . the answer is yes, I feel he’s better than the Democrat. The Democrat, if in office, would “represent” his constituents in ways I feel are harmful to his constituents and the nation as a whole.
Now I have a question for you, in the same spirit of honest engagement.
Do you think that the posters that are engaging me in this thread are, in good faith, summarizing my positions fairly and attributing them to me fairly?
Slate pointed out that the apology only came out after the win. Before the win, this campaign put out a statement
Them days are gone and ain’t coming back.
Really? Where, in the past 18 years that I have been posting on this board, did you find me endorsing the pro-abortion candidate based on a feeling that he was really pro-life?
I read this comment as, “When you agree with the liberals, you’re great; otherwise, not so much.”
I read it as "You used to be the type of poster who wouldn’t characterize a common thug as being pro-life. You wouldn’t advocate for hurting people as being a pro-life position. "
Your mileage obviously varies.
If that’s the case, then he mistakes my list items meaning.
I regard abortion as ending the life of a human being.
When I speak of someone being “pro-life,” I refer to their opposition to the killing of human beings by means of abortion, or the death penalty.
Their willingness to body-slam a reporter is not admirable, but it’s not something that removes them from being called pro-life. The body-slam is not pro-life but neither does it negate a pro-life position. Again, “pro-life” in this context meaning “opposition to the killing of human beings by means of abortion, or the death penalty.”
Do you disagree?
Because, frankly, I think the position you seem to be pushing here is surprising. In American politics, “pro-life” means what I said, and a “thug” like Al Franken wouldn’t be judged as pro-life or pro-choice based on his decision to body-slam a protester.
I am not pushing any point of view. I was attempting to clarify another reading of the post you seemed to have a problem with. You may hold that “pro-life” only refers to being anti-abortion, and that’s a reasonable standpoint. One position many who are pro-choice have suggested is that there is something wrong with a position that calls itself pro-life, yet is quite okay with actively seeking to hurt people. You may suggest that it doesn’t matter if someone puts another in the hospital through assault, as long as one doesn’t advocate that abortion should remain legal. But, as some have said, that position is not so much pro-life, as pro-fetus.
It follows from your argument.
Relevant tweetstorm. Although I suppose it reflects poorly on me that my response to this:
Would be, “Good, the fucker has had it coming for a long time now.” But then again, categorizing Hannity as a “journalist” is like categorizing me as a “chef” because I know how to heat up a hot pocket in the microwave.
This is an attempt to parse the words “pro-life,” in a way different than you know I was using them.
I’m also opposed to the death penalty, and I call that pro-life, but would you say that position is not so much pro-life as pro-murderer, since after all only convicted murderers are subject to the death penalty?
It was directly contradicted by what I said. I explicitly said that this wasn’t OK, but was merely preferable to the alternative. I used the analogy of changing a tire in freezing rain. So you knew I wasn’t saying “This is OK,” and you knew it did not follow from my argument.
So again, why did you say it? You knew it wasn’t a fair summary of my argument. Everyone reading this exchange knows that. Why did you use it?
Exactly!! And how about “World Series” and “Miss Universe”. Totally confusing terms since the World Series isn’t played throughout the world and Miss Universe is, well, you know. I’m always confused by those terms, aren’t you?
But the worst of all is “impeachment”. 
It doesn’t refer to the Democrat’s desire to immerse Trump in a vat of peach juice?
Wow, I am really disappointed.
No, that’s “enpeachment”.
Totally confusing, if you ask me.