Shooting at the government

[Running Gator]

12 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

That's a little twisted to roll on your back and laugh like that. Because I didn't try anything. I did in fact post a Snopes article that speaks for itself. 

Realizing offenders will jump at any opportunity, I forgive your try in that respect. The foolish here is not I.  Because I actually read the full article and for that reason it was sourced here. Unlike the OP itself.  

Yes, the Snopes article that speaks for itself and it verifies that Judge Nap did indeed send that tweet, despite your efforts to make me look like a liar.    that is a very dishonest thing to do.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

Just now, Running Gator said:

Yes, the Snopes article that speaks for itself and it verifies that Judge Nap did indeed send that tweet, despite your efforts to make me look like a liar.    that is a very dishonest thing to do.

 Your false impression is not my reality. Nor has it any truth to my reason for posting what you failed to do when you initiated this discussion. And that was, post a source to support your claim.  

 

[Running Gator]

15 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

If the person where thinking rationally.  If the person is not rational, all bets are off.  It does not take much of anything to set off a sociopath.  Sociopaths do not need a reason to do these kinds of things.  They just need a place. 

I agree 100%, which is why blaming either Judge Nap's tweet or a play in Central Park is ridiculous.  Yet that has not stopped lots of people from blaming the latter. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

What the judge meant is irrelevant.

What the judge meant is actually very relevant.

Quote

The people doing Shakespeare in the Park do not mean for people to see their play and go kill elected officials yet you are more than willing to give them the blame.

I have not "blamed" them for anything, but they are contributing the toxic, violent environment.    I understand what they mean, but my point is that what they "mean" is lost on those who need just a little extra push to go over the edge and carry out their delusional fantasy.   The people willing to actually kill don't care about the nuances of artistic expression and don't really care about the intended message.   But the play's producers aren't factoring that into their decision to add to the violent, anti-Trump environment.

 

Quote

 But when it comes to someone from the right, all that matters is what the meant.  

You are comparing a violent play with a comment made about the 2nd Amendment and the two are entirely dissimilar.   You don't really care about what the judge meant, but a more responsible approach to the judge's comments would seek to understand what he meant.

And frankly, you are mishandling his words in some futile attempt to make what he said appear to be inciting and inflammatory when his words, in their natural context, are not likely that at all.

Quote

The political double standard once again

There is no double standard here.  You're just not making a very good, or meaningful argument.

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

 Your false impression is not my reality. Nor has it any truth to my reason for posting what you failed to do when you initiated this discussion. And that was, post a source to support your claim.  

 

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

What the judge meant is actually very relevant.

I have not "blamed" them for anything, but they are contributing the toxic, violent environment.    I understand what they mean, but my point is that what they "mean" is lost on those who need just a little extra push to go over the edge and carry out their delusional fantasy.   The people willing to actually kill don't care about the nuances of artistic expression and don't really care about the intended message.   But the play's producers aren't factoring that into their decision to add to the violent, anti-Trump environment.

You are still playing the double standard game here.

With the Judge it seems it is impossible for "what he meant: to be lost on those that just need a little extra push to go over the edge, while the play gets different treatment. 

Quote

You are comparing a violent play with a comment made about the 2nd Amendment and the two are entirely dissimilar.   You don't really care about what the judge meant, but a more responsible approach to the judge's comments would seek to understand what he meant.

You are correct, I do not care about what the judge meant as we are not talking about what he meant but how it could be taken by someone needing just a little push, which is the very same way you are taking the play.  

Quote

And frankly, you are mishandling his words in some futile attempt to make what he said appear to be inciting and inflammatory when his words, in their natural context, are not likely that at all.

Which is what you are doing to the play, yet that seems to be ok when you do it.   In its natural context, Julius Caesar is neither inciting nor inflammatory and in fact shows the folly of doing such a thing.   Yet, you will still hold it responsible.  

[Guest shiloh357]

44 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

You are still playing the double standard game here.

With the Judge it seems it is impossible for "what he meant: to be lost on those that just need a little extra push to go over the edge, while the play gets different treatment. 

First of all, the judges comment was made at least a year ago and it only resurfaced in a re-tweet of Rand Paul on the day of the shooting, AFTER the shooting took place.  So the judge's comments could not have contributed to what took place. 

The judges comments pertain to a different issue, namely self-defense from a tyrannical government and when he made those comments, Hillary was already presumed to be the one who would win the election.  He wasn't inciting anyone to violence, but was making a defense of the 2nd Amendment.   The context and intent is entirely important since you are trying to spin it to make it something that is not and was not intended to be and does not at all pertain to the Va. shooting.

It's not a double standard.   A double standard is when you unevenly apply a moral standard, like saying it's wrong for you to steal from me, but it's okay for me to steal in order to feed a starving child.

Your "double standard" argument is a losing argument.

Quote

You are correct, I do not care about what the judge meant as we are not talking about what he meant but how it could be taken by someone needing just a little push, which is the very same way you are taking the play.  

Whether you care about it or not, really doesn't matter.   It matters, anyway.  

 

Quote

Which is what you are doing to the play, yet that seems to be ok when you do it.   In its natural context, Julius Caesar is neither inciting nor inflammatory and in fact shows the folly of doing such a thing.   Yet, you will still hold it responsible.  

No, I don't hold it responsible.  I said that I think it contributes to the violent climate that exists against Trump, but I never said it was responsible for shooting in Va.   I care what words mean, and I care what MY words mean and the intent that I assign to them.  YOU do not get to spin my words to mean something I did not intend. 

[ayin jade]

50 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Yes, the Snopes article that speaks for itself and it verifies that Judge Nap did indeed send that tweet, despite your efforts to make me look like a liar.    that is a very dishonest thing to do.

And yet your quote from napolitano was out of context and made to look like something other than what it was. Somehow that was honest?

[MorningGlory]

13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

First of all, the judges comment was made at least a year ago and it only resurfaced in a re-tweet of Rand Paul on the day of the shooting, AFTER the shooting took place.  So the judge's comments could not have contributed to what took place. 

The judges comments pertain to a different issue, namely self-defense from a tyrannical government and when he made those comments, Hillary was already presumed to be the one who would win the election.  He wasn't inciting anyone to violence, but was making a defense of the 2nd Amendment.   The context and intent is entirely important since you are trying to spin it to make it something that is not and was not intended to be and does at all pertain to the Va. shooting.

It's not a double standard.   A double standard is when you unevenly apply a moral standard, like saying it's wrong for you to steal from me, but it's okay for me to steal in order to feed a starving child.

Your "double standard" argument is a losing argument.

Whether you care about it or not, really doesn't matter.   It matters, anyway.  

 

No, I don't hold it responsible.  I said that I think it contributes to the violent climate that exists against Trump, but I never said it was responsible for shooting in Va.   I care what words mean, and I care what MY words mean and the intent that I assign to them.  YOU do not get to spin my words to mean something I did not intend. 

The fact that the judge made the comment over a year ago was one I wasn't aware of.  So how can the lefties twist it around to make it relevant to the shooting a year later?  I have to admit they're pretty limber in their game of Twister.  Besides being totally oblivious to history and the Constitution.  It's scary to think that people like that vote, i.e., people that lie to THEMSELVES. 

[MorningGlory]

4 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

And yet your quote from napolitano was out of context and made to look like something other than what it was. Somehow that was honest?