…bullshit yourself. I found that quote with precisely 30 seconds of googling. I linked to it to provide the full context of the quote. I’m not the fucking news. I’m a poster on a messageboard. Even with the full context: there is no material difference between “there is no crime” and “There was no police report filed, and no one has made a complaint so far. Therefore, at this point there is no victim, and there is no crime.” Because when there has been no police report filed for 12 years, and when no one has made a complaint in 12 years, and when there has been no victim for 12 years, and Al Franken has not been accused nor convicted of a crime for the last 12 years: I feel it is perfectly accurate to quote the police spokesman saying exactly that. Especially when this incident is being used as a comparison for what we are discussing in this thread.
Why the fuck are you going after me? When Bricker posted that link without bothering to do any further investigation of the incident, why the fuck are you not going after him for making things less clear? Why didn’t you spend 30 seconds on google to find the very same quote that I found? I’m not your mum. You are perfectly capable of finding out the very same thing that I did and you could have cleared everything up for yourself.
Don’t you fucking accuse me of making things less clear. I’ve actually cleared things up which is more than Bricker is trying to do. I’m not the fucking news: so don’t accuse me of “being fake news”. I didn’t accuse Bricker of being “fake news.” I stated he was smart and intelligent. I stated he fell for fake news. The Al Franken talking point has been doing the rounds and Bricker obviously picked it up from somewhere and posted it here (twice) without doing any fact-checking at all. It isn’t comparable to what happened with Gianforte at all.
piffle, you are not impressing me at all right now, I was actually complaining that you were making that asinine point. (that is recommending others to do such a thing). I guess I will have to take what you are saying as a concession that indeed, it is not a good idea for a lawyer to suggest such a course of action to others.
And, of course your point about the heckler incident was not good either because what your sources told you was not the whole truth. Yet you seem to still post as if it the spin they gave it was correct.
Franken’s incident was 2004. Miller-Young was 2015.
What are the aspects that need to be comparable?
For example, Franken wasn’t a candidate at the time, but later became a senator. Gianforte was a candidate and is now a Representative-Elect. Are those differences fatal?
Miller-Young was a professor, and still is, despite conviction on three crimes. Franken was never charged. Gianforte is charged with one misdemeanor offense. Are those differences fatal?
I’m trying to understand what types of similarities you regard as meaningful.
Speaking of meaningful, the parking lot incident was described later as a joke by Franken, Rich Lawry also claimed that his accusation (that democrats had feminized politics, as in sissified them) that provoked Franken then was also a joke…
They both dined together later.
So, keep grasping at that straw, you are not looking sharper at all. The point stands, even if I drop the “duel” straw you are attempting to use. A lawyer telling others that it is commendable to use fighting words or to resort to violence when no threats of harm are coming is not a good idea.
The security guards were right there. There is no evidence that Franken’s action were necessary in order to remove the Heckler.
Do you think the law making this criminal assault should be repealed? If not, how can you advocate the idea that one must break the law and physically assault someone simply because that person is heckling and that the security guards are not instantly there?
Heckling is a minor annoyance. Assault has the potential to do permanent harm.
As I said, not impressed at all, you are just pitiful…
And obtuse too, but I knew that already, in any case it is noticeable that that straw is the only thing you have while I pointed at why your examples are actually examples of why you need to look at better sources of information before looking as if you only have bad ideas.
I quoted your words back at you. You’re unable to either admit error or defend them. So you stop advancing the duel idea, but never admit error, and hope it doesn’t get called out.
But you said it: are you really a lawyer that is telling here to others that fighting words or to set up what amounts to a duel are things that are recommended?
Did it amount to setting up a duel, like you said it did? Simple question. Your words. Are they correct or not?
So the question is, what is the shittiest, most menial committee assignment “The Hammer” could be assigned to? And don’t let your imagination run away with you.
piffle again, that was my impression of what you pointed at, and then you tried to claim that it was what I proposed (again it is what I think you proposed) it seems to me that your insistence on the challenge of Franken to Lawry amounts to that. If you claim that that is not a duel, then I have to take your word.
It is clear to all you are the one that is incapable of not admitting that your examples were trash, hence the need to hang on to straws like that.
…even 2015 wasn’t “peak social media.” How are you comparing the differences in outrage? How are you measuring outrage? How are you defining outrage?
I’m trying to understand something entirely different.
You are a smart man. Probably one of the smartest on the boards. But you’ve resorted to posting posts like this? What the fuck has happened to you?
I have no interest in engaging with your disingenuous position. I will never ever be able to give you “similarities that you regard as meaningful” because you will argue with whatever I say regardless. I think you are arguing for the sake of argument, either because you feel like trolling, or something has happened in your personal life that has completely thrown you off your game.
What I want you to understand is this. I’ve always respected you on these boards even when I’ve completely disagreed with your opinion. But I don’t know what you are trying to achieve here. The people of Montana are now represented by a millionaire believer of creationism who lacked the ability to control himself when he was asked a few questions by a reporter. And several days after that incident he still hasn’t answered that fucking question. The assault is only part of the equation and only part of why this is a story. Gianforte hasn’t told us if he would have voted for the AHCA now that he has seen the CBO report. The silence is fucking deafening. And the other part of the equation is both the outright support of the assault by many republicans, and the lack of condemnation from others. You can’t look at this incident in isolation, pointing to superficial similarities (with the other incidents you cited) and ignoring the specifics. There may well have been less outrage if the Republican leadership had reacted differently. But as we don’t have an objective way of measuring “outrage” then that is something we will never ever know.
Civil disobedience is meant to change the law. Do you think the law needs to be changed? I asked you that earlier, but you didn’t answer.
Also, do you honestly think that security for these type of events would want the audience to jump in a physically assault hecklers in this manner? I’m not talking in the most general sense-- that they might, sometimes, want civilians to help. But in this particular case.
But civil disobedience is not limited to attempts to change the law. It can stand for the proposition that the law’s application is not the optimal way to resolve the issue.
QFT, and Gianforte committing assault is only one of many issues that shows how unhinged republicans have become, even the ones that claim to be smarter or moderates are just reflexively supporting tools like Gianforte for congress.
I’m not seeing the distinction there. If the law is not an optional way to resolve an issue, then it should be changed so that it is optimal. Perhaps there might be some rare instances where the law needn’t change. For instance, we don’t want to encourage certain behavior, even though we recognize that in highly unusual circumstances, heroic measures might be needed. Hecklers at a political rally don’t even come close to such unusual situations.
