Nope, free speech is important, this is clearly an opinionGP should justify his insertion of "revolt" and particularly "armed" into the story. If GP can't show where Chuck Schumer called for the use of weapons against the Supreme Court, then GP must:
- apologize to his fellow DARTers for authoring fake news and
- request that the Mods take down this partisan accusation as inflammatory, defamatory and false.
That speech was even more threatening when placed in context!Let's be sure to notice that the speech only seems threatening when stripped of context:
ad hominem. The only person talking about armed revolt is GP, which is a deliberate manipulation of the truth.Hopefully, if you are not high on the autism scale, and if you are, I apologize in advance, you can clearly see the rhetoric as a call to action for a few crazy people waiting for a reason to act.
--> @oromagiHere is the exact quote which, we should note, GP carefully fails to cite:It is possible that this was not "careful failure to cite" and instead mere projection on GPs part, he believing that an "armed revolt" is the option that he would favor if the positions were reversed and therefore that it is reasonable to assume this to be the option anyone else who might disagree with the Supreme Court should favor.It is also possible that he is merely prone to childlike exaggeration. Consider previous quotes of his such as "Mexicans are doing to us the same thing that Europeans did to Native Americans"He also has an outrageously strong black-and-white mentality, to the point where he incorrectly interpreted my pointing out that there was no evidence of a Mexican plot to commit genocide against anyone as me being in favor of open immigration policies.Actually now that I think back on that incident his insistance on holding to that interpratation even after being corrected makes me think you are probably right, he probably is intentionally twisting the truth rather than simply misunderstanding it in some way.<br>
Interesting. What “price” will Kavanaugh and Gorsuch pay considering they were mentioned by name. Can you say what the price they will pay? It’s not directed to Senate Republicans or Legislatures. It was directed directly towards the two justices. In your opinion what is the price the justices would pay, cause normally when people say you’re going to pay, that’s a threat"
The little I know of GP...But honestly I have no idea...I think of GP as...My point is that...
Stop talking in third person
DD thinks that GP does not know what the phrase "third person" means.
My point is that the notion of armed revolt is not explicit or implicit in Schumer's speech
Autism maybe. People who converse in the 3rd person have been known to have mild autism.
That speech was even more threatening when placed in context!
non-sequitur.Lol, the 3rd person shtick is old dude, autism or not.
--> @oromagiYou know what, go get fucked troll.I have never had to block anyone before on this site, but consider yourself the rare exception.
how so?
I think Schumer meant "pay the price" literally, in it's actual dictionary sense rather than one of it's many possible figurative senses. Just as sometimes (most times) when the Boss says he has to terminate an employee, he does not mean he intends to kill that employee, Schumer meant that Republicans would incur the negative consequences of overturning abortion (and in the next sentence identified those consequences as electoral failure in November) and did not mean that he intends to kill Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
No normal person refuses to uses the 2nd person in a typical back and forth dialogue.
