What happened today had nothing to do with either so linking them is flat out dishonest.
1 Like
what happened today is what will happen if the rhetoric at the highest level will not stop.
like i have said before it should be a warning but it wonât be.
What happened today had nothing to do with heated rhetoric. It was a grudge that has been building for years and the attack was obviously planned and premeditated over a significant amount of time.
Linking the two is simply dishonest.
Does the bomb throwing rhetoric need to be ratcheted down? Certainly but it had nothing to do with this incident.
what happened today was an attack on the press
the rhetoric is also an attack on the press
keep ratcheting up the rhetoric and the end result will be the same. its not dishonest it is a very distinct possibility.
What happened today was an attack on a paper by a guy whoâd lost a defamation suit against the paper whoâd held a grudge over it for more than a year who had publicly threatened them on social media more than once.
It had absolutely nothing to do with anything else and claiming it did is flat out dishonest.
5 journalist dead in their own newsroom but not an attack on the pressâŚbut of course.
and again and again you are missing the point, a point that i have posted repeatedly in this thread im not linking them in the way that it was a cause and reaction. im linking them in the way that a different cause will have the same results aka dead journalist
It was an attack on a specific publication for a specific reason, it was not an âattack on the pressâ.
You keep making dishonest linkage post, after post, after post.
A publication is the press stop trying to parse out. the dude was not happy about them does not change the fact that it was an attack on the press. he did not attack the courthouse, or the judge he attacked the newspaper that he believed was in the wrongâŚAKA the â â â â â â â press
This was no more an âattack on the pressâ than a road rage incident is âan attack on the driving publicâ.
He attacked the paper he felt had defamed him, nothing more, nothing less.
1 Like
he attacked the press outlet that he felt had defamed him
You know, at this point itâs just getting pathetic. You should have quit long ago.
coming from the guy who refuses to agree that a newspaper is not the pressâŚirony
'The Press" is the whole of the electronic and print media.
Just quit.
so the newspaper is a part of the press.
an attack there is an attack on the press
He actually tweeted about the Hebdo Shooting (another part of the overall press) in that it was funny the editor dying so it was not limited to the Capital.
Ok so weâve now gone from pathetic to downright stupid.
He had a beef with this particular publication over losing a defamation suit, he wasnât attacking âthe pressâ he was attacking this one specific paper over a personal grudge.
the guy hated journalism as a whole because of what the publication did to him. he basically praised what happened to Charlie Hebdo. he attack and murdered 5 journalist. he attacked members of the press because he did not like what hey had reported. he didnt attack the judge, or did he kill the woman he harrased
There is no broader context. The paper offended him, he sued them for defamation and lost, and decided to shoot the place up.
Trying to make it into something itâs not is simply dishonest, Just quit.
again for the Nth â â â â â â â time my point is there are crazy people who will do exactly what this guy did if the president and others continue to label the press as the enemy of the people.
If thatâs all you had been saying we wouldnât have even had this conversation. Of course, it isnât what youâve been saying, youâve been trying in vain to link this shooting to something broader in spite of the fact the evidence shows us itâs a completely unrelated incident and nothing but a personal grudge acted out against this particular publication over a defamation claim.
what do you think this post was about
you are the one who decided to come into the thread to once again parse every letter for some weird desire to argue a point that was not in argument in the first place
1 Like
