NRA spokes woman driven from home by threats of rape and murder.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I never said I hated you.There are very few people in this world that I actually hate and you quite frankly aren't worth that negative energy.

Missed the point though. Which is regardless to feelings people don’t do this dumb shit of the OP I’m talking about Dana.

- - - Updated - - -

So we can agree that people get what they deserve for the political positions that they take then?

No because that’s exactly what she threatened and how this started so no. We can’t agree on anything.

[Svifnymr]

Did she say "they" promote homophobia, as in, liberals? Roflwat? Is she aware what side she is on here?

"they" as in "liberals", label folks homophobic/ racist/ nazi's in order to disparage them. Thus, you must fight them with the truth. Which apparently folks in this thread consider advocating violence.

[Doctor Amadeus]

"they" as in "liberals", label folks homophobic/ racist/ nazi's in order to disparage them. Thus, you must fight them with the truth. Which apparently folks in this thread consider advocating violence.

Right and when that truth hits you then you want to play victim and get sympathy.

[The Penguin]

Threatening women you using her gender as a fucking defense?

Uh no. She is an adult if you call for armed conflict and death this is one of many things that can happen even if she didn’t. Which if she had no matter how much I disagree I’d have more sympathy.

But she lit the match thinking only others would get burned.

Oh silly me. Let me rephrase it.

What part of 'You don't threaten another human being with rape or murder' don't you get?
The only persons who need to be 'burned*' as you put it, is every sleazebag who has harassed her and broke the law by issuing criminal threats.

Show me any laws she broke and I'll condemn her equally. Otherwise your in the wrong here.

*- Burned in this sense means that the perpetrators must face the full scope of the law, and be punished accordingly for violating it.

Time to knock off the fucking talking shit and tough guy talk. Otherwise don’t but then stop fucking whining.

I guess the only response I can give to keep it civil, is a old Navajo saying.

"Like heated wind on the plains they bluster and blow, and yet the mountain does not move."

Anyone threatening this woman or defending her attackers is a part of the problem and is in the wrong.

[Kithelle]

Go figure, anti-gun nuts threatening to shoot her...I guess it's do what I say not do what I do? Gotta love them hypocrite nutjobs!

[Mormolyce]

Obviously such threats, if they actually occurred, are appalling and anyone making them should be rounded up.

But bear in mind that this is one of the Blaze's professional trolls. Whether or not the threats were real, this is an explicit attempt to capitalise politically on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure what is either offensive, or radical about demanding that people follow the laws

I didn't think so either, but then your President went and pardoned a man convicted of criminal contempt of court. So apparently that is a radical notion to people of a certain ideology.

[The Penguin]

I didn't think so either, but then your President went and pardoned a man convicted of criminal contempt of court. So apparently that is a radical notion to people of a certain ideology.

A court that should of never come to that conclusion had they acted impartially and not like a pack of 9th Circuit activists.

Lets agree to disagree and keep the dialogue on topic. There's already another thread for the Arpaio matter.

[Mormolyce]

A court that should of never come to that conclusion had they acted impartially and not like a pack of 9th Circuit activists.

That's a joke, right? He openly bragged about it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Oh silly me. Let me rephrase it.

What part of 'You don't threaten another human being with rape or murder' don't you get?
The only persons who need to be 'burned*' as you put it, is every sleazebag who has harassed her and broke the law by issuing criminal threats.

Show me any laws she broke and I'll condemn her equally. Otherwise your in the wrong here.

*- Burned in this sense means that the perpetrators must face the full scope of the law, and be punished accordingly for violating it.



I guess the only response I can give to keep it civil, is a old Navajo saying.

"Like heated wind on the plains they bluster and blow, and yet the mountain does not move."

Anyone threatening this woman or defending her attackers is a part of the problem and is in the wrong.

That’s your opinion and I disagree. She Calls for armed conflict and violence towards others because she disagrees with them.

Yes please keep antagonizing shit like that so people can get drawn in and everyone, anywhere, anytime is fair game for anything right?

Yeah I’ll go with what I said before I don’t have any sympathy for an adult woman too stupid to care.

[Venant]

That’s your opinion and I disagree. She Calls for armed conflict and violence towards others because she disagrees with them.

Yes please keep antagonizing shit like that so people can get drawn in and everyone, anywhere, anytime is fair game for anything right?

Yeah I’ll go with what I said before I don’t have any sympathy for an adult woman too stupid to care.

Do you believe that you are making a rational argument? For it to be rational, you would have to accept that somebody taking the same position on the opposite side of the political spectrum would be also holding a legitimate position.

[Moralgy]

"they" as in "liberals", label folks homophobic/ racist/ nazi's in order to disparage them. Thus, you must fight them with the truth. Which apparently folks in this thread consider advocating violence.

Oh, I misheard her, listened again and she was bitching about people calling others those things, not that they promote those things.

[kail]

I'll repeat what I said in the thread related to some guy giving up his guns after the Vegas incident and received his share of threats...expect them. If you are wanting attention in any way, especially when it involves politics, expect threats from people protected by anonymity that don't have a fraction of the guts to even make the threat in person. It's the Internet, shitty people exist in all shapes and forms and their half dozen voices are given more attention than deserved.

The nutshell: It's shitty, but should be expected tbh.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Do you believe that you are making a rational argument? For it to be rational, you would have to accept that somebody taking the same position on the opposite side of the political spectrum would be also holding a legitimate position.

No no took. See Dana did that and now she attracts equally fucking stupid and violent people.

[The Penguin]

Yes please keep antagonizing shit like that so people can get drawn in and everyone, anywhere, anytime is fair game for anything right?

I am pretty sure she called for self-defense and responsible Gun ownership. Not violence wholesale against another human being. Once again, I'll reiterate that I am not sure how speaking an opposing view point is antagonizing anyone. Are we really saying that certain people in this country are too immature or violence prone to argue a matter out based on a preponderance of evidence and on the facts as presented? Because that is the only reason I take such a harsh stance on #BLM and AntiFa. Because I doubt their ability to hold a civil discourse to work out their differences. I base that also only upon their own actions and talking points such as calls for dead cops, or attacking anyone who they disagree with.

Getting back to topic, humor me. Who is the aggrieved party here? The people calling this woman? Surely not. If someone has such thin skin that they must resort to violence when they are challenged verbally or intellectually; then do we really want such people voting in our elections? I should think not. That is after all why we have a Electoral College yes?

If the woman is the aggrieved party (which I should think she is) since criminal threat is at least since the last time I checked Black's Law Dictionary, a crime; then it is neither incendiary or wrong to declare and hope that the individuals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise are brought to justice and subjected to prosecution under the fullest extent of the law. Whether it's appreciated or not is irrelevant to this dialogue. We're still a nation of laws, and the law applies equally to everyone. Regardless of whether you are a member of ANTIFA, a Nazi, a #BLM member, a part of the KKK, or even this woman exercising her freedom of speech.

In this sense what is right and what is wrong is beautifully simple and thankfully, very, very colorblind.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I am pretty sure she called for self-defense and responsible Gun ownership. Not violence wholesale against another human being. Once again, I'll reiterate that I am not sure how speaking an opposing view point is antagonizing anyone. Are we really saying that certain people in this country are too immature or violence prone to argue a matter out based on a preponderance of evidence and on the facts as presented? Because that is the only reason I take such a harsh stance on #BLM and AntiFa. Because I doubt their ability to hold a civil discourse to work out their differences. I base that also only upon their own actions and talking points such as calls for dead cops, or attacking anyone who they disagree with.

Getting back to topic, humor me. Who is the aggrieved party here? The people calling this woman? Surely not. If someone has such thin skin that they must resort to violence when they are challenged verbally or intellectually; then do we really want such people voting in our elections? I should think not. That is after all why we have a Electoral College yes?

If the woman is the aggrieved party (which I should think she is) since criminal threat is at least since the last time I checked Black's Law Dictionary, a crime; then it is neither incendiary or wrong to declare and hope that the individuals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise are brought to justice and subjected to prosecution under the fullest extent of the law. Whether it's appreciated or not is irrelevant to this dialogue. We're still a nation of laws, and the law applies equally to everyone. Regardless of whether you are a member of ANTIFA, a Nazi, a #BLM member, a part of the KKK, or even this woman exercising her freedom of speech.

In this sense what is right and what is wrong is beautifully simple and thankfully, very, very colorblind.

If you advocate or suggest violence in any way the way Dana did you are wrong.

None gave her this response before and they disagreed with her fine.

This was a critically fucking stupid thing for her to do. It was thoughtless and wreck less and ok until she got pulled in again no sympathy.

Think before opening her fucking mouth or don’t. But making thoughtless comments the she did. Just beyond moronic.


Doesn’t matter her gender or politics.

[The Penguin]

If you advocate or suggest violence in any way the way Dana did you are wrong.

None gave her this response before and they disagreed with her fine.

This was a critically fucking stupid thing for her to do. It was thoughtless and wreck less and ok until she got pulled in again no sympathy.

Think before opening her fucking mouth or don’t. But making thoughtless comments the she did. Just beyond moronic.

Doesn’t matter her gender or politics.

She didn't advocate violence. Clenched fist of truth is a figure of speech occasionally used in Law, so I will excuse your ignorance. It means non-compromise on people who break the law. I share such a stance. If you do the crime, you do the time. Vigorous prosecution of lawbreakers. As for the other part dealing with her claim that "we're coming for you". It cannot be argued that the media is unabashedly biased. Chris Matthews is a hack, Wolf Blitzer is out of his league, Anderson Cooper is insane, and Rachel Madow clearly suffers from T.D.S., or Trump Derangement Syndrome, much like several people on these forums.

There is nothing wrong with bringing truth to light and correcting fallacious statements. Or do you have a issue with the truth being brought out?

If yes, why so? I embrace the truth and I demand the truth in all regards. Indeed my dislike of Robert Mueller is not formed on a fear of him finding something, quite to the contrary. It's because he is compromised and has ties to Comey that I worry that if he finds something truly egregious and worthy of getting Trump impeached, it may be glossed over or excused because of who he is and what his ties are.

Ultimately whether it deals with Russia, Hillary's Emails or any other scenario; I demand the truth of my leaders and I will oppose them when they lie as Bush did on Iraq, or Obama did on Health-Care. I will also oppose them when politics clearly gets in the way of Justice, or politics are the gavel used to punish someone for their beliefs or actions.

That isn't the core of this argument however. The issue is the actions of the political zealots making these threats. Since their parents and teachers clearly have failed them in education, and in discerning right from wrong; I'll elaborate. There is everything wrong with making threats of violence and rape on any human being. Anyone who comes to someone's home looking for that sort of trouble would be deserving of getting shot in self-defense if it came down to it, and most definitely if they invaded the home or attacked a human being with Baseball Bats, Acid, et al., on the streets.

It'd be a tragedy also.

It would be a tragedy for this reason. Contrary to the spin-doctoring that is often used by inept hacks on these forums, neither Dana Loesch or anyone else on the Right actually wants to kill people (as any sane person would oppose that as well). But the left knows this. They just want to spin the words for political points, unaware that people are sick of the rhetoric. If anything it is worth consideration that any madman who has taken the above step, namely a overt act in the commission of a dangerous crime; would essentially be looking to attack / kill / rape someone for exercising their First Amendment Right. Such a mentality is not far removed from the mentality of Stalin and Hitler tragically.

All you are doing M.S. is willfully ignoring what I and others wrote and then reiterating it's primary points as if they were your own in a effort to strawman. Since that appears the depth of your argument, I can see further dialogue in a educated fashion is a exercise in futility and would be counter-productive.

You appear to simply want to silence and shut down any topics you disagree with. Unfortunately people like me are simply not going to allow that, and we'll continue to elect people that oppose the agenda of monsters such as those threatening Ms. Loesch, in favor of a hardliner stance on the rule of Law and to ensure that this is not permitted. There's a reason I come back Infractions by the biased aside. Someone has to advocate the common sense that is lacked on these forums, and remind people like you that speaking false statements like that will not go unchallenged. Not now, not ever.

Ironically in protecting people like Dana Loesch, we protect also the lives of the ignorant hateful savages that would want to rape or kill her for speaking her mind. By arresting them for uttering those threats, we prevent them from acting upon them and potentially getting killed in a Home Invasion gone badly. We protect them by reminding them and their peers that there WILL be consequences for such disgusting behavior if they try it. What consequences? They will face a Judge and Jury of their peers, and one should hope a punishment in line with what they attempted. Unlike these forums where infractions are often handed out for what appears to be merely political disagreement, the Courts are far more suited to the administration of Justice.

As I close, I find myself in a odd but welcome scenario. I completely agree with Chelsea Clinton's statement, and I for one am glad she had the class to condemn this. That showcases that she has far more intelligence than her mother and far more integrity than most of the people on these forums. I've always been for the most part a centrist and never have been fond of either Bush or Obama. And yet common sense, and a preference for a society governed by the rule of Law; and a place where people aren't calling for dead cops has made me Alt-Right or something.

Call me whatever the hell you like. As I said before, hot air on the plains and all that. I am not impressed.

We agree to disagree on this. Good day.

[Deleted]

Man I can't imagine the paycheck she'll get from this.

[Post]

No like you thinking it’s ok to joke with a woman we only kill black people. You have no credibility.

That's random, what a weird way to try to deflect from your misogyny.

[Zan15]

So your advocating for the death of those threatening her. Wow.



Until anyone who disagrees with you shuts up?

Sounds like a Fascist talking point to me. Nah, instead of that how about we demand the Police do their job and arrest every single dirt bag that threatened her and remind these wastes of air that there are laws for a reason. Maybe if enough of these dumbasses lose their ability to vote, there will be a change. None of the people threatening her deserve that right, and sure as hell should never be allowed to own a gun.

if they take it father then threatening which she says she is worried, isn't that what guns are for???

[Melius]

serious question here, do you american folks think the streets would be better off without people having the right to carry guns? no irony or malice in my question, im actually curious if this would make a big difference?