Yes. For a discussion like this, political party and political position are very similar.
Oh, no. If he withdrew from the race, smiles everywhere. The outrage arises from political opposition; a withdrawal from the race erases that opposition.
Nope. You have consistently and deliberately misrepresented what I have said; I have answered questions you’ve asked and engaged you fairly. Remember your response to my hypothetical? How fair was that?
…who the fuck are you?
…the question was: is this what it means to be American? Is the battle between left and right what defines you?
“Political party” and “political position” may be “similar” to you: but when you are using them interchangeably in your thesis it changes the meaning of your thesis. As a lawyer I would have thought that using the correct language in your thesis would be important.
It is entirely possible for a Republican and a Democrat to hold and believe in the same political positions. Pelosi position on Trump’s strike on Libya was that it “appeared to be a proportional response to the chemical weapons attack”. On the Libya strike the Republican and Democrat political position was indistinguishable. So the outrage would have been the same correct?
You don’t think that “outrage” might have been generated by the fact that a politician (or any party affiliation) body-slammed a reporter for asking a question, proceeded to punch him in the face, then “hid” behind a campaign statement that blamed the incident on the reporter? And he apologised after the election, not before it, essentially conceding he was responsible for the incident? You don’t think any of that played into the “outrage?” Why do you even think that party affiliation is relevant?
Quote me where I’ve mis-represented you.
No you haven’t. You have selectively pretended to answer questions. You’ve been consistently disingenuous. You even did it here in this very post.
It was entirely fair. I don’t play in ridiculous unrealistic hypotheticals. Especially in the pit. I never ever have and I never will and I gave you fair warning.
This discussion isn’t about the political situation in America. This discussion is also about Greg Gianforte assaulting a reporter. You just decided that you were going to make it a discussion about a political situation because you can’t defend your boy any other way (not that you’re doing a bang-up job at it anyway). So what do you say we get back on track and you take your bullshit arguments about Al Franken (a situation which doesn’t even begin to compare in the first place) to the “Al Franken Assault” thread. You might have to look back about ten years in the archive to find it, though.
I thought all of the pissing about BICKER was supposed to happen in this thread.
YOU: (LIBERAL COMMITS ASSAULT) It was justified, he’s a hero, the victim was a Nazi, the victim was trolling!
YOU (CONSERVATIVE COMMITS ASSAULT) Violence is never acceptable!
ME: Um… but what about the other time, when you said…
YOU: SHUT UP! Start a new thread if you want to talk about another incident.
ME: (IN NEW THREAD) OK, here we have a liberal committing assault.
YOU: Shut up! The victim was a Nazi, the assaulter is a hero, or, ah, “Ho hum, I am outraged, see this is ‘outrage.’”
ME: Ah, excuse me, but I don’t think you’re treating them the same as…
YOU: Shut up! This thread is about the poor Nazi you want to defend (or the highly justified professor) (or the highly justified Al Franken self-deputized security force). If you want to talk about Montana, start a new thread!
ME: So… it seems that every thread has it own independent standards applied to behavior, and oh, hey, just by coincidence, the threads where we discuss liberal violence are very tolerant of violence, and the threads where we discuss conservative violence are Ghandi-esque in rejecting violence as a solution.
YOU: Um… shut up!
A politician assaulted a reporter who was only doing his job. I’m not going up say violence is never acceptable; there are cases where it certainly is. I don’t think this case was one in which it is acceptable.
Exactly. If you get it, why can’t the others??? Maybe they just didn’t want to.
This. Enough with the bullshit already.
Are you implying now that reporters and Nazis are the same? One is a guy doing his job (reporting). A nonviolent type who had the “nerve” to ask a question.
The other is a fucking Nazi who’d gladly kill “the Other” if he only had the balls to do it. Yeah, the Nazis. Started a world war (WW2 if you forgot), killed the Jews Gypsies Gays and damn near anyone else they could. Would do it again, if they could.
WTF??
But never mind, it’s just more of your “both sides” BULLSHIT.
Meaningless question. Who cares what “defines” me? Plenty of things define me. I’m a science fiction reader and have been since age 5. I collect single-malt scotch. I am a practical Roman Catholic in union with the Holy See. I am a husband and father. I have a secret addiction to Clive Cussler trash novels. I attend the opera regularly, and am also a huge fan of musical theatre and can tell you who recorded the original cast album for No No Nanette. I once was greeted with relief by a woman who heard me speak properly and then confided after she heard my name she was afraid I might be one of “those Hispanics.”
All those things, to some degree, “define me.” But none of them are relevant to this discussion, and what “defines me,” is similarly not an issue in play.
In this discussion, since they are similar, and because of that similarity may be used interchangeably. If you think this is such a stretch, then instead of fanning yourself to avoid the near-faint this interchangeable use has created, why don’t you explain (in your view) the terms are so different that my thesis is mangled beyond recognition? Or why don’t you discover what meaning I attach and agree for the purposes of this thread that this is the meaning they’ll have?
(I ask that last out of a sense of foolish optimism: nearly every debate thread can find me saying, at some point, “OK, for the purposes of this thread, I’ll accept that definition/theory/claim.” Because I have to do that here. Just like I have to accept that unless a news cite is from the New York Times or Huffington Post, it’s useless.)
No. The outrage would NOT have been the same. A given political position, to be sure, may be shared by Republicans and Democrats. I am confident that both Bernie Sanders and Mitch McConnell oppose repeal of the 22 Amendment. But knowing their respective political parties is still a valid proxy for the aggregate set of their political positions, and the aggregate set of their political positions is what drives the dual standards I’m complaining about.
So I contend that when a news story about a politician committing petty violence pops up. commentators here are safe in checking the political party to which the malefactor belongs and settling on their level of outrage based only on that, because they know that political party is a fair proxy for political positions.
Of course. But I notice that even before the assault, there was outrage that he was a creationist billionaire Republican. So the assault gives an acceptable nucleation point. If the assault never happened, the outrage at Gianforte’s creationism would still exist.
Seriously?
In post 303, you suggested that the Franken incident and the professor incident all happened over 20 years ago, by mentioning them along with the Moran punch and then dismissing them as before social media in the 1990s. You also quoted the “there is no crime” line from the article to show there was no crime, not disclosing that the context of that quote was that no crime had been reported to the police, and not a case of the police investigating and determining no crime happened. (You then were called on it by John Mace and responded with insults.)
In post 351, you said that people are genuinely scared that they will loose access to healthcare if the ACHA passes: and if they do loose access to healthcare then they will die, and millions of people are in that boat. You said that makes the level of outrage different. But every single time I have suggested the level of outrage is different based on political positions held by the malefactor, you’ve denied it.
If you had learned in high school what an analogy is, your SAT score would have gotten you in to a better school, and you’d probably be not nearly as mediocre as you are today.
I learned in grade school the difference between a good analogy and a bad analogy, and what “false equivalence” means.
You are so full if shit, if you took an enema you’d disappear. As for analogy, you tried to equate
*Let’s see if I remember correctly *
Yep, full of shit as a Christmas goose.
I wonder if the victim of the assault truly makes no difference to Bricker. Because assaulting a reporter - member of the free press that was so important to the finding fathers and all that- and assaulting a Nazi are so very similar. We need only look to how many of these assaults have occurred, not who was assaulted? Would you still vote for Gianforte if the reporter were a pregnant woman?
I am starting to believe the only thing that matters is party affiliation. Notwithstanding any spurious and fallacious protestations to the contrary.
That there’s some purty big words from a guy whose SAT was ONLY good enough to get a scholarship. 
Yes, and you cunningly discerned that a girl is not a guy, thus destroying my analogy.
Because you don’t know what an analogy is.
Let me explain. Maybe someday you’ll have a niece or nephew taking the SATs. Show them this post. Do not attempt to explain analogies yourself. You’ll doom the poor kid to a lifetime of fast-food work, or possibly even a job as staff editor for Mother Jones.
An analogy is not a one-to-one match of all aspects of the items being compared. For example, the SAT may have a question that looks like this:
PILOT:AIRPLANE :: ? :CAR
(A) WING
(B) WHEEL
(C) DRIVER
(D) Cars aren’t airplanes and this question is as full of shit as a Christmas goose
Now, be calm, because I know that to your brain, the obvious answer is (D).
But the correct answer is actually (C), “DRIVER.”
Puzzling, huh?
The answer is (C) because the question is not saying that an airplane is a car. Instead, it’s saying there is some kind of relationship between “Pilot,” and “Airplane.” Then it asks what similar relationship exists between a “Car,” and the other choices. A Pilot directs the operation of an airplane from place to place and a “Driver,” does the same thing with a car.
I know you don’t follow, but just show this post to your niece or nephew.
BWAHAHAHA.
You have over 50,000 posts on this board, and if that claim were true, I’d say roughly a third of them would look very different.
Can you show me any posts I’ve ever made in which I treat any assault claim differently?
More generally, I can show you plenty of posts where I have defended Democrats against accusations of criminal activity. Can you show me posts in which you’ve defended Republicans?
Which of us truly relies ONLY on party affiliation?
I just saw your example of a supposedly good analogy, so I think I’ll give your opinion all the attention it…my ghod, the weather here in Portland just turned to shit. Where the hell did the sun go?