LogFAQs > #900046511

Dancedreamer posted...

Corrik posted...

Is this a lot of dancing around the issue to find a way to say you would support a threat to shoot someone?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, in a ton of words.

Is this your round about way of saying it's okay to say "Democrats should be shot on sight"?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, except without outright stating it.

Instead of saying "Ted Nugent and Dana Loesch were wrong too!" you decide to dance around them. Why is that? I mean both of them are far more well known than some random professor that nobody who doesn't go to their university has heard of before today.

All I'm asking for is a little consistency. Either they're all wrong (which I think they are, but I find it hard to get outraged when Republicans won't denounce Nugent and Loesch for saying what they did) or they're all right.

I do not know who Dana Loesch even is. And, I am pretty much on the record as not caring at all for guns, so trust me I am not defending a NRA fucking boardman. You are just looking for a reason to justify it as being okay while trying to rationalize it.

That said, the woman here didn't even make a threat. She could have implied one based on how you read it. I doubt many are outraged at her "threat" due to the ambigious nature of it. I think many more are just appauled that someone who is responsible for education in a college and represents it is acting so ridiculous.

But, the fact you were looking to rationalize what is a possible threat of shooting people as okay because they were anti-republicans says enough about your politics.
---

LoL ID = imajericho
XBL GT = Corrik