MEDIA advocates for violence... again.

[ipaq]

Not long ago Rand Paul, a libertarian republican was viciously attacked by a neighbour, breaking his various bones.

So once he got better he went on the media to discuss this topic, and this is what happened (starting from 1:38)



THIS GAVE ME CHILLS

Rand Paul : I dont think of any kind of motivation or justification, political or personal to attack somebody whos unaware from behind in their own yard

Deface the nation : Sure, tho if its politically motivated those who are involved in politics might think about changing the way they behave to change that climate.

Rand paul: maybe.... maybe ( with a shocked face)


So basically this disgusting creature reporter suggests that politicians should bow down before extremists and change their agendas (what got them elected) so violent radicals dont assault them


absolutely new low, totally disgusting and honestly horryfying.
Politics were designed so people dont fight and kill each other over decisions, instead they vote, this is how democracies work, and this stupid monkey reporter cant just grasp this basic fact.

Spamming " Deface the nation " pretty much told us what kind of idiot you are.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, it's a way to throw insults at subhumans who use violence (any extremist group on both sides). Only idiots support subhumans.

Anyone for who you disagree thus name calls. The only violence you are against is those you agree with, otherwise you need to try to devalue them. This your argument.

[Fojos]

Anyone for who you disagree thus name calls. The only violence you are against is those you agree with, otherwise you need to try to devalue them. This your argument.

Mall Security being the same as usual. Am I surprised?

No, any violence against anyone is done by people who act without using any rational thinking, this is the kind of animal you support.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Mall Security being the same as usual. Am I surprised?

No, any violence against anyone is done by people who act without using any rational thinking, this is the kind of animal you support.

I don’t care if you’re surprised or not your actions in what you type contradict. I don’t care about your excuses or what you think I ought to think about what you care about.

Basically at this point you’re just hitting the reply button hopping that’s going to change by trying to validate your rationale for violence against those you disagree with.

[Dmitro]

Republicans are upset that the Democrats can harness extremism better than they can. That the Democrats disenfranchisement campaign of Donald Trump is infinitely more successful in every way possible compared to the blatant propaganda Republicans piddled out over Obama. It's actually kind of adorable how pathetic Republicans are barely passing a tax bill after a year of Trumpism.

wow, so republicans are losers cause they are more mature people and their voter base is more calm and once again, mature?

Damn, harsh!

btw +1 violent radical in the thread, there are around 7-8 now.

(Btw its easy for democrats to launch campaigns since they ( or their donors) own almost every major media outlet aside from fox)

surprisingly how republicans are 1% party then when literally 99% of 1%ters are democratic donors and the american big business leans left.

some logic holes I see there.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't keep preaching non-violence while simultaneously fucking people over in all non-violent ways possible.

When families can't afford food, education or medical care for their children no amount of preaching about non-violence and democracy is going to stop them from doing what is necessary to protect their families.

so we should give homeless people money now cause they cant have a job or smth otherwise their violence towards people is justified.

wow (:

or should upper middle class riot over tax increases and launch violent attack at dems for pushing them?

btw +1 violent radical in thread

- - - Updated - - -

Spamming " Deface the nation " pretty much told us what kind of idiot you are.

no arguments - lets discuss my personality

so smart man!

[Kiri]

Not long ago Rand Paul, a libertarian republican was viciously attacked by a neighbour, breaking his various bones.

So once he got better he went on the media to discuss this topic, and this is what happened (starting from 1:38)



THIS GAVE ME CHILLS

Rand Paul : I dont think of any kind of motivation or justification, political or personal to attack somebody whos unaware from behind in their own yard

Deface the nation : Sure, tho if its politically motivated those who are involved in politics might think about changing the way they behave to change that climate.

Rand paul: maybe.... maybe ( with a shocked face)


So basically this disgusting creature reporter suggests that politicians should bow down before extremists and change their agendas (what got them elected) so violent radicals dont assault them


absolutely new low, totally disgusting and honestly horryfying.
Politics were designed so people dont fight and kill each other over decisions, instead they vote, this is how democracies work, and this stupid monkey reporter cant just grasp this basic fact.

Okay, I watched this thing and to me, it seems as if you are misrepresenting that one statement a bit. They are talking about a climate where people think it is okay to attack politicians they disagree with. He says that politicians might want to change their behaviour in order to get rid of that climate.
You heard that as: politicians should cower before extremists to save themselves
I heard that as: politicians themselves should change their 'us vs them' rhetoric and behaviour to not condone this kind of climate. To not verbally attack each other or random people, or present them as 'the enemy' to their own little tribe.
Given that the same reporter immediately references that climate again, I think my reading of that line seems to align more with what the reporter wanted to convey. Right after that line, he asks the Senator 'why did the President feel the need to question the mental stability of the book author, instead of just ignoring it', with the implication that stoking the fire like this is something that can breed more violence.

So, ultimately, this does not seem like condoning violence, but rather seeking to want to remove the climate that breeds violence.

Also, even if you were right, it would not be 'THE MEDIA' advocating anything, just one reporter, so the thread title is disingenuous anyway.

[WskyDK]

I am against violence generally, especially political one, I am just saying that if the guy assaulted was on his political side, the reaction (most likely) would be 360* different.

360 degrees different...

[Dmitro]

I heard that as: politicians themselves should change their 'us vs them' rhetoric and behaviour to not condone this kind of climate. To not verbally attack each other or random people, or present them as 'the enemy' to their own little tribe.

True, but its not the RAND PAULs fault ( as the tv host presented) but rather people on other side with their hateful rhetoric, for example

"obamacare repeal will kill millions!" (pelosi or schumer dont remember)
"tax plan is a death plan" (!!!)

of course democratic politicians and the democratic media complex encourage their base to think this is some kind of assault of them with this kind of propaganda 24/7.

Then there of course will be crazies who assault republican politicians (happened twice during 1 year alredy!), but instead of blaming the attack on radicals or people who enable them, this idiot blamed in on the VICTIM.

(btw "death" tax plan is doing just fine for me and people around me)

[Draco-Onis]

wow, so republicans are losers cause they are more mature people and their voter base is more calm and once again, mature?

Damn, harsh!

Calm and mature like these guys.

[Dmitro]

Calm and mature like these guys.

wow, now I will post 2 pictures of antifa and we will have a reasonable discussion.

or I shall post 1-2 jihadists and call all muslims terrorists

( what would you prefer?)

man, you're so lost (:

- - - Updated - - -

People who have nothing to lose are much more easily motivated towards extremes than others.

What I said is simply reality, and that won't ever change, preaching non-violence won't help when people are getting screwed over by said non-violence.

At some point you'll be surrounded by so many 'violent radicals' that you'll be unable to protect yourself against them, or convince them they're wrong.

Best to prevent it getting to that point.

Kinda agree, for example democrats/the media should stop calling their opponents proposals "death plan" "this will kill millions"

"republican party is a party of death"

then we will have less radicals maybe?

the hysteria from the left is what drives most people crazy, I suppose they shall stop, even we during 09-11 were 300% more calm.

Just compare the tea party to what is going on now, just compare

[Deleted]

True, but its not the RAND PAULs fault ( as the tv host presented) but rather people on other side with their hateful rhetoric, for example

"obamacare repeal will kill millions!" (pelosi or schumer dont remember)
"tax plan is a death plan" (!!!)

of course democratic politicians and the democratic media complex encourage their base to think this is some kind of assault of them with this kind of propaganda 24/7.

Then there of course will be crazies who assault republican politicians (happened twice during 1 year alredy!), but instead of blaming the attack on radicals or people who enable them, this idiot blamed in on the VICTIM.

(btw "death" tax plan is doing just fine for me and people around me)

So what you are saying is that the politicians and the media, is with their behaviour promoting political violence?

[Dmitro]

I'm pretty sure that in the objective and sane world -all- republicans are regarded as extremists.

You can't sail on a platform of religious nuttery, denying climate change, gay rights, anti-abortion and still be considered a 'moderate' party. (the racists thrown in are just the cherry on top).

oh, another partisan fella.

I mean I just didnt know how people managed to survive before obama with no obamacare gay marriage and so on!

sorry, but one party doesnt have to adapt to another parties ideology, its not how it works

"republicans we think X is X if you dont agree youre a bunch of extremist, ... "

"who cares taht X was implemented just a couple of years ago, YOU RACISTS SFKASKFSAKFK"

its not liberals and democrats who decide what is a norm, stop living in a bubble.

- - - Updated - - -

So what you are saying is that the politicians and the media, is with their behaviour promoting political violence?

Of course they are, when you call your opponents "a death party" see what happens ( already happened twice)

[Dmitro]

OR Republicans could stop pushing for policies that will end up killing lots of people or their livelihoods.

"or democrats could stop pushing for policies that will turn america into a 3rd world country due to immigration"

It goes both ways, but republicans are generally more mature and middle-classy to not attack their opponents like radical monkeys

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget pedophiles and the undeniable urge to make millions of people lose health insurance just cuz you don't like a black guy that used to be pres

Oh sure! obamacare is resisted by republicans cause Bamer was black! not cause its a huge pressure on middle class families!

Obama was the best pres! who doenst like him is a raccciststst!


wow, you're truly brainwashed

[Draco-Onis]

wow, now I will post 2 pictures of antifa and we will have a reasonable discussion.

or I shall post 1-2 jihadists and call all muslims terrorists

( what would you prefer?)

man, you're so lost (:

You are the one who just claimed.

wow, so republicans are losers cause they are more mature people and their voter base is more calm and once again, mature?

It's not my argument it is yours.

[Priestiality]

"or democrats could stop pushing for policies that will turn america into a 3rd world country due to immigration"

It goes both ways, but republicans are generally more mature and middle-classy to not attack their opponents like radical monkeys

- - - Updated - - -



Oh sure! obamacare is resisted by republicans cause Bamer was black! not cause its a huge pressure on middle class families!

Obama was the best pres! who doenst like him is a raccciststst!


wow, you're truly brainwashed

The only thing turning the US into a third world country is racist, uneducated dipshits. SPOILER ALERT: They're white and born there.

[Dmitro]

You are the one who just claimed.


It's not my argument it is yours.

nope, your argument is pictures of 0.01% of republicans, while my argument is statisctis ( you're so wrong again)


- - - Updated - - -

I never said Obama was the best, he was mediocre mostly, but when your first year as president is dedicated to defaming and undoing anything Obama did or said during the previous term kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

yes, it does speak for itself, Trump is truly fixing this country after 8 years of a leftist president

If you implement trash and anti-american policies dont be surprised that people kick your party out of the office and the next pres is canceling most of your decisions

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing turning the US into a third world country is racist, uneducated dipshits. SPOILER ALERT: They're white and born there.

Stop being racist towards white people, btw reported for racism.

[Deleted]

Of course they are, when you call your opponents "a death party" see what happens ( already happened twice)

Okay, so you're now muddling the question being advocating political violence, with an actual answer to why that question should actually be asked because its answer has validity in the current climate.

So which is it? Should such it be questioned, so that you can expose advocation of political violence, or should it remain unquestioned to prevent advocation of political violence? Because you can't have both.

Also, remember death panels? How Obama was going to make everyone poor? Sorry, I am somewhat unfazed by hypocrisy.

[Dmitro]

You are the one who just claimed.


It's not my argument it is yours.

its a 100% truth and your only counter-argument was 2 pictures of 0.01% of republicans.

so sad (:

[Machismo]

youre pro-violence, thanks for letting us know, unfortunately we disagree on that, for example I support politics and democracy, not violence, like you and the defacethenation do

You want to ban gay marriage, and stop people from immigrating with force. You are pro-violence.

[Draco-Onis]

its a 100% truth and your only counter-argument was 2 pictures of 0.01% of republicans.

so sad (:

numbers you pulled out of your ass ignoring the last 8 years of right wing hysteria on Obama.