Only if you subscribe to the weirdo liberal notion that anyone that commits a crime is mentally ill.
This guy was a hothead, previously arrested for failing to obtain electrical permits, discharging a firearm in public, damaging a motor vehicle, resisting a peace officer, eluding police, criminal damage to property, driving under the influence, beating his daughter and assorted traffic offenses. Amazingly, after entering the system that many times, no one ever diagnosed him as mentally ill. There's even evidence that he possibly prepared for this attack by rehearsing the shooting.
I didn't say he had a mental illness. I said he was crazy and that such an act is crazy.
2a : not mentally sound : marked by thought or action that lacks reason :
insane 1b yelling like a
crazy man —not used technicallyb (1) :
impractical a
crazyplan (2) :
erratic crazydriversc : being out of the ordinary :
unusual a taste for
crazyhats
Merriam-Webster
I think all of those definitions apply.
Of course he wasn't. Bernie totally disavowed him. But I'm saying it's more than a little possible that murderous terrorist left-wing weirdos are also left-wing activists.
Yes, this terrorist left-wing weirdo was a left wing activist.
The problem was that you took it a further step: that we should be concerned that a left-wing activists may be terrorist left wing weirdos. But this action does not define an entire huge group, and your insinuation is dangerous.
This terrorist left-wing weirdo was also a man. Does that mean all men should be suspected of being terrorist left-wing weirdos? Of course not.
You're the one claiming that no matter how low the number of relative left- and right-wing assassins, you can still tell that there must be more right-wing ones.
I was thinking of the recent mosque attack in Quebec, the Portland attack, the Charleston church shooter, the various abortion clinic shooters, and the Oklahoma City bomber. I struggle to come of with as frequent examples of liberal-motivated attacks. However, I could not find statistics to back up my claim, so I will withdraw it.
It is unnecessary for my main point: Conservative terrorists exist. That doesn't mean we should be scared of all conservatives or conservative rhetoric, unlike your claims regarding liberals.
Oh yes- because that's the way it works: Islamic attacks aren't caused by Muslim terrorists, but by Islamophobia promoted by conservatives. What refreshing logic!
Nope, never said any of that. I think Muslim terrorists are motivated by, and find justification, in their religion. It's certainly a factor.
Please tell me when I said "crowds" of assassins, or quit lying that I made the claim.
I believe I said, "batch", meaning "next group", not some ill-defined number, large or otherwise.
Here it is, with my bold:
When the investigations fail to provide evidence or Congress doesn't vote to impeach, what will be the effect upon the gun-toting liberal assassination crowds then?
I'm just saying they exist and that it's likely there will be more. You're the one who seems to have an allergy to such a statement.
No, I objected to your insinuation that being liberal, and that anti-Trump rhetoric, should be evidence that someone might be about to become a gun toting assasin. Don't you see that slippery slope? It's a way to effectively silence the political opposition by casting everyone who holds those beliefs as a dangerous lunatic.
Your numbers are way off too, unless you are confusing Republicans and Democrats with conservatives and liberals. Most of the country, those who are eligible to vote, don't register as either R or D.
I think it's clear that the country's political beliefs are split nearly half-n-half. But even if we only split those registered to vote, that's over 200 million people, with 48% registered as Ds and 44% registered as Rs. My point stands that these are huge groups of people we are talking about.
But okay- shall we bet that there will / won't be another assassination attempt upon a member of the federal government in the next 42 months?
No. That is distasteful. And even if an attack does happen that doesn't mean that we should be scared of liberals, just like we shouldn't be scared of conservatives after the various attacks they have perpetrated.
Maybe work on sentence structure then?
"I am not saying these things to cast aspersions on all conservatives or to claim that there will be crowds of crazed Republican assasins, like you."
I never claimed there were crowds of "assasins". I never said things to cast aspersions on all conservatives. And I certainly would never be a Republican assasin (or assassin).
You did claim that we should be worried about "gun-toting liberal assasination crowds". As for the rest, I never claimed that you were.
