I contend that it’s a position that needs to be distanced from, for the same reason.
I’ve adopted the strategy of waiting for them to grow old and die. Which has, of course, one rather glaring drawback.
Well, how about anyone who’s pro killing your political opponents just go ahead and post and save us an army of +1s?
In December, she formed a PAC called the Patriot Caucusto promote Tea Party issues and candidates.
I think my “plus 1” is a lot less offensive than this “second amendment” stuff, in light of what has already happened. That is in extremely poor taste, to say the absolute least.
Do you think she wanted, was hoping for, or foresaw that someone would get a gun and kill Harry Reid?
I think she intended to sow irrational fear with callous disregard for the consequences of her speech. She didn’t care if it motivated someone to murder Reid.
“Too stupid to forsee” is not the defense you are looking for.
I think this is probably pretty close to the truth. I’d delete the word “callous”, as when someone disregards something, I don’t think callousness is helpful in the characterization unless something horrible seems tightly linked to her statement. Here, I don’t see that as being the case. I don’t see her statement as having any result other than adding to the general heat of the larger dialogue. Reid, as far as I know, was not shot or threatened. And there is, (again, as far as I know) no evidence that that Jared fellow ever heard her utterance.
So she called for the assassination of her opponent (what the fuck else could it mean? All you’re saying is that she didn’t really mean it) and no one happened to kill him, so I guess all is cool then.
Feel free to substitute “reckless” for “callous”. What she did was reckless, and the fact that no one died does not excuse her.
Sure it does. If you take away the negative consequence, why restrict the speech?
Where did she call for his assassination?
Because of the risk that she created. That’s why we arrest drunk drivers, even if they don’t crash into anything.
“We need to take out Harry Reid”
Anyway, I’m done with you for the purpose of this conversation. All of you who will fucking defend someone like Angle because she’s part of your political tribe are so far gone as to not be worth the trouble of talking to. You engage in Rush/Beckesque spin, never admitting a wrong, never judging one of your own no matter how badly they act. You have no dignity or intellectual honesty, and I’m tired of this shit.
The sad thing is that you think that somehow you’re scoring more points, winning more favor, or making more convincing arguments by being completely partisan and rigid. As if never admitting anyone on your side was wrong somehow gives you strength. But you’d be a million times more credible if you said “look, I’m politically conservative, so I vote republican, but I wish these nuts weren’t such a big part of my party” or something. But you value that unshakable blind partisanship, with ridiculous, obvious, and even childish spin, over all else.
But there is a known correlation between drunk driving and having an accident. And and accepted causation. There is neither for Angle’s speech. The proof is that Harry Reid is alive and well and wasn’t even threatened.
Nonsense. There is a known correlation between violent inflamatory speech, and violent action.
Well you can be done with it when I’m done with you. So, you’ll have to hang around a bit longer…
You say that Angle called for the assassination of a sitting Senator. I disagree. It seems that people who know more about such things agree with me and not you, namely, the FBI and the Secret Service. Unless you can point to Angle being arrested for threatening to assassinate a U.S. Senator. Can you?
No? Shucks. Guess that means that all the evidence supports my take and you’re stuck with a feeling that you’re really, really, really sure about.
Think I’ll go with the FBI and the Secret Service on this one, chum.
Now we can be done.
Aside from correlation being lightyears from causation, what is this known correlation? And is this correlation so strong that you’re willing to curtail free speech for it? And we’re beyond the hypothetical. Reid was the target of her comments, and he is as hale as ever.
Yes. In a heartbeat. We have laws that demand it.
So what? Her speech was as dangerous to Reid as a drunk driver is to pedestrians; just because those particular pedestrians make it home, does not excuse that particular drunk driver.