Does this mean you would be perfectly willing to overlook an assault on a pregnant woman, because policy and politics matter far more than that one ( or two, in a certain light) victim?
Still arguing with yourself about the definition of “analogy” huh?
The rest of us don’t give a shit, least of all, me.
Well, Bricker is really branding himself as a fool. As pointed before his analogies would work if they were equivalent, as pointed before he was shown that his examples at equating what took place with Gianforte suck, so his yelling post only succeeded at helping me picture Bricker like this from now on:
It’s absolutely obvious you don’t care what an analogy is.
But this is a good time to comment on what freaking herd animals you guys are.
Look how often you need to refer to “us.”
“The rest of us think…”
“The rest of us feel…”
“I’m confident I’m safe, because look at the rest of us, all here with me, supporting me!”
Which is, of course, why you congregate in the SDMB Liberal Safe Space Echo Bubble. Contrary opinions kept to a minimum, and if they intrude, why, you have only to join hands with your brethern. “The rest of us don’t like your nonsense!”
For a while I wondered if you had sentient tapeworms and were sharing their agreement with your politics. No surprise that a parasite would be liberal, of course.
You consider having a minority opinion to be evidence that your opinion is correct?
Interesting.
…octopus… .
In applying for a job in which one takes an oath to… here, let me quote:
“… do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Applying for a job which requires one to support and defend the Constitution, the Rep decided to violate said Constitution… and here we have people arguing that it is OK for a man running for the House to go ahead, violate the oath you’re about to take… because, why, again?
I mean, what is the reasoning here, really? The Constitution is not the law of the land? You’re only required to support it once you take an oath, but not before? It’s OK to elect people who openly violate the Constitution because of “procedure” and “rules of order” or other such ethos-lacking arguments?
It’s funny that he accused someone else in this thread of that. I found that fascinating.
OK, I’m accused of giving the Republican a pass on violence.
Show me the post where I condemned the Democrat.
Scrupulous consistency is not the hallmark of legitimate opinion.
First: you cannot violate an oath you haven’t taken.
Second: the Constitution does not prohibit a private citizen, or even a candidate, or even a sitting Congressman, from punching someone. So even if he COULD time-travel in order to violate the path he hasn’t taken, this act doesn’t violate it.
Third: I predict no acknowledgement of error. Because of your tapeworm.
What I was pointing out was the words “I am starting to believe the only thing that matters is party affiliation.”
Which is what you accused another poster of here:
You know, the one where you claimed to know more than the poster did about him or herself? That post. The one I pointed out was Speculation and you claimed was “Expert Opinion.”
That thing. Yeah, projection.
My rebuttal is: I can show posts in which I have defended Democrats, and inveighed against Republicans. This rebuts the claim that “the only thing that matters is party affiliation” as the claim applies to me.
And I pointed out that others here CANNOT show they defended Republicans and inveighed against Democrats. This shows that “the only thing that matters is party affiliation” is tenable as applied to those others.
THAT, in turn, rebuts the claim that I am projecting.
Seriously, if that’s ever possible, you must know this is true. You know I’ve spoken up strongly when the crap email server stuff was leveled against Hillary Clinton. You know I spent post after post pointing out the wrongness in calling Ted Kennedy a “murderer.” You know I spoke out in favor of John Kerry’s status as a war hero.
You must look at those stands, and then look at your own posting history, and realize that you’ve never expended similar work in favor of a Republican.
In your private thoughts, how do you reconcile that with attacks like the one you’re making?
All this effort to support a violent Congressman who hates the First Amendment! <3 Bricker <3
Well you are even more foolish, defending Republicans is not the subject of the thread; dealing with Gianforte is. Of course you have to reach for the bottom of the barrel of stupid equalities to make it not be about Gianforte.
It is only you who are demanding that defense of a sorry rhetorical point of yours. And clearly with the intention to continue to deflect on what Gianforte did.
The First Amendment is not violated when a private person, or even a candidate, or even a Congressman punches a reporter.
I’m not defending the Congressman-elect. I’m defending the truth against stupid ideas like, “Candidates who punch reporters openly violate the oath they are going to take in the future to the Constitution.”
Yeah, sorry. I know what the subject of the thread is:
Climate change!
It is a factor, you dummy.
And the record shows that after I posted a cite that did not trigger your “killing the messenger” stupid move it is clear that you can not counter that Gianforte will also be a disaster for the environment where you also have to live.
You ended up just running away yelling at clouds.
I think Bricker had made the point that Gianforte’s policy positions and politics are the deciding factor in whether he would vote for him, yes? One assault does not disqualify him from representing him. This hold true if the victim were a reporter, a woman, a Nazi… I suppose since my question about a pregnant woman was soundly ignored, that too would not disqualify in Bricker’ opinion from representing him. I wonder if any individual’s assault could disqualify Gianforte from office- as long as it was merely one assault, that is.