ABC, Sinclair anchor, "I'm going to ram a hot poker up David Hoggs ass"

[bodecea]

That is not cheering me up, Bodeca.
I'm getting accused of not caring about the Nazi's killing the Jews because I think we should get out of Syria. Now I'm getting accused of wanting censorship when I attempt to teach some rudimentary manners to someone old enough to know better.
Some days this place sucks.

You frequently support censorship - if you don’t want it, don’t support it,

This particular incident is not censorship or an attempt at censorship; that is the point.

That is your conclusion, based on the assumption that the outrage over the statement is real.


A premise that will be proved false, when it is a liberal that makes such a statement.


Also, these same liberals, were pretending, initially, to not understand that it was a figure of speech.


DOesn't that make you just a little skeptical?

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

 

[Correll]

And now someone's feelings have been hurt by my being rude. Oh! whatever will we do!?!?!?!?

And on the internet, of all places!!

Anger is the proper response to someone being rude.


What part of that is confusing to you?

No, it's not. Ignoring them is the proper response.

I strongly disagree.


In the past, that is the tact that conservatives have taken. To be above it.


It has allowed vile liars to create false perceptions that have, often become accepted as the Conventional Wisdom, because the constant assertions were not challenged.


If someone is rude to me, I will call them on it, point out that it was done because they could not make a real point, and then return the rudeness.

And when someone is whining about how life is so unfair because a "man" on his show thought it was a winning comment to threaten to stick a red hot poker up a teenager's ass.....and is held accountable by his audience.

Well, yes, I did disagree with you on the topic, your spin noted and dismissed.


I did so civilly and dealt with your points seriously and honestly.


And then when you lost, and decided to be rude, I called you on it, pointed out that you failed to make a real point, and then returned your rudeness.


What part of that did not you not understand? Are we done with that? We seem to be going in circles here now.

 

[Tilly]

Apparently...that kind of language is not only acceptable for today's trumpanzee.....it could get you elected to office.

That is not cheering me up, Bodeca.
I'm getting accused of not caring about the Nazi's killing the Jews because I think we should get out of Syria. Now I'm getting accused of wanting censorship when I attempt to teach some rudimentary manners to someone old enough to know better.
Some days this place sucks.

You frequently support censorship - if you don’t want it, don’t support it,

This particular incident is not censorship or an attempt at censorship; that is the point.

That is your conclusion, based on the assumption that the outrage over the statement is real.


A premise that will be proved false, when it is a liberal that makes such a statement.


Also, these same liberals, were pretending, initially, to not understand that it was a figure of speech.


DOesn't that make you just a little skeptical?

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

From Witchit on page 1:

He threatened a sexual act on a minor. What a complete dumb fuck.

Witchit, remember saying this?

 

[Correll]

You frequently support censorship - if you don’t want it, don’t support it,

This particular incident is not censorship or an attempt at censorship; that is the point.

That is your conclusion, based on the assumption that the outrage over the statement is real.


A premise that will be proved false, when it is a liberal that makes such a statement.


Also, these same liberals, were pretending, initially, to not understand that it was a figure of speech.


DOesn't that make you just a little skeptical?

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

It was a threat to give the punk a very hostile interview.

YOu know that.


It is absurd of you to pretend otherwise.


All you are doing now, is showing yourself and your kind to be very, very dishonest.

 

[OldLady]

Gee, you seem angry.

Logic would dictate that if both parties are the same, you wouldn't have to predict. It would have already happened.

Have at it. I'll wait right here.

The previous bitch dismissed my post as "whining". That was very rude of her, and I called her on it.


What part of that is confusing for you?


And I'm sure that it has happened. And that if I spent the time, I could find examples of similar or worse behavior, and you libs would make excuses for the libs in question.


But it is far easier to predict your behavior, which will happen.


And Old Lady, when the time comes, can connect the dots herself.



Oh, and I did not say that both parties are the same. You libs are far worse.

Yup, you've moved into ad hom territory on Witchit. Means you know you're losing.

There is no censorship here. Learn a little bit about civil behavior and how professionals should behave in public and voila--your "censorship" problem will be solved.

Bodecia was rude, and I returned the rudeness.


She is the one that went to the gutter because I had utterly kicked her ass.


Will you watch for the example I told you will come? Will you admit it, when it does?

When you think you've got one, call me Correll. If a liberal says something like that newscaster, and it is actually something similar to the newscaster, I will condemn it, I promise you. But not if it's an imaginary slight.

Remember when Kathy Griffin had that picture of her holding a head like trump? We condemned that and her career is pretty well shot.

Yup. We've come down pretty hard on inappropriate behavior, like Al Franken, et al. What I can't understand though, is this growing sense among the Alt Right that the Left is some sort of amorphous powerful monster moving through the country when we can't even come up with someone interesting to run in 2020.

 

[Witchit]

This particular incident is not censorship or an attempt at censorship; that is the point.

That is your conclusion, based on the assumption that the outrage over the statement is real.


A premise that will be proved false, when it is a liberal that makes such a statement.


Also, these same liberals, were pretending, initially, to not understand that it was a figure of speech.


DOesn't that make you just a little skeptical?

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

It was a threat to give the punk a very hostile interview.

YOu know that.


It is absurd of you to pretend otherwise.


All you are doing now, is showing yourself and your kind to be very, very dishonest.

Oh, now this is interesting! Where's the offer of an interview, or mention of an interview, or anything to back your incredibly weak assertion?

 

[Correll]

That is your conclusion, based on the assumption that the outrage over the statement is real.


A premise that will be proved false, when it is a liberal that makes such a statement.


Also, these same liberals, were pretending, initially, to not understand that it was a figure of speech.


DOesn't that make you just a little skeptical?

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

It was a threat to give the punk a very hostile interview.

YOu know that.


It is absurd of you to pretend otherwise.


All you are doing now, is showing yourself and your kind to be very, very dishonest.

Oh, now this is interesting! Where's the offer of an interview, or mention of an interview, or anything to back your incredibly weak assertion?

My mistake, after reviewing the link it seems he was referring to just giving a report on the kid, not actually interviewing Hogg.


Which, as Hogg was not even going to physically BE THERE, makes any claim that this was an actual threat of physical harm even more absurd.

 

[ATL]

He threatened a sexual act on a minor. What a complete dumb fuck

Oh please! If I say I'm going to "kick your ass" what am I threatening to do?

Btw, this is a test of your honesty.

Commit a class C misdemeanor and go to jail?

 

[ATL]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

 

[Correll]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

 

[Witchit]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

 

[Correll]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

NOthing "beta" about pointing out the absurdity of you libs pretending to not know what a figure of speech is.

 

[Witchit]

NOT AT ALL. I certainly felt it was outrageous for anyone to say it was a violation of free speech to object to the guy's language or behavior. I don't know what game you think decent people are playing here. Most of the people in this thread are telling you honestly what they think. Are you so twisted with suspicion and hatred of the opposition that you cannot hear?

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

It was a threat to give the punk a very hostile interview.

YOu know that.


It is absurd of you to pretend otherwise.


All you are doing now, is showing yourself and your kind to be very, very dishonest.

Oh, now this is interesting! Where's the offer of an interview, or mention of an interview, or anything to back your incredibly weak assertion?

My mistake, after reviewing the link it seems he was referring to just giving a report on the kid, not actually interviewing Hogg.


Which, as Hogg was not even going to physically BE THERE, makes any claim that this was an actual threat of physical harm even more absurd.

I don't suppose you have any offspring? Children of friends, maybe? How would you feel if someone said that about them. I'd feel protective, and nauseated that someone would say such a thing.

Further, you seem to be under the same misapprehension trump is under, i.e., they hit us, we hit back twice as hard. Except nobody hit him. He just went off like a perverted lunatic, and subsequently quit.

So why are you defending him again?

 

[ATL]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

NOthing "beta" about pointing out the absurdity of you libs pretending to not know what a figure of speech is.

Yes, you and others are acting just like beta males whining about some 17 year old speaking on national tv. Conservatives love to speak about how manly and tough they are, how they are alpha males and leaders, yet your true colors come out whenever you are removed from your safe space.

Beta.

 

[Correll]

Quite a number of them were denying that it was a figure of speech.


That was not honesty.


That was them being dishonest.

And someone continues to excuse this violent threat to sodomize the teenager as a "figure of speech".

It was a threat to give the punk a very hostile interview.

YOu know that.


It is absurd of you to pretend otherwise.


All you are doing now, is showing yourself and your kind to be very, very dishonest.

Oh, now this is interesting! Where's the offer of an interview, or mention of an interview, or anything to back your incredibly weak assertion?

My mistake, after reviewing the link it seems he was referring to just giving a report on the kid, not actually interviewing Hogg.


Which, as Hogg was not even going to physically BE THERE, makes any claim that this was an actual threat of physical harm even more absurd.

I don't suppose you have any offspring? Children of friends, maybe? How would you feel if someone said that about them. I'd feel protective, and nauseated that someone would say such a thing.

Hogg is either a child or a man. YOu dont' get to switch gears depending on what works for you in the moment.

Further, you seem to be under the same misapprehension trump is under, i.e., they hit us, we hit back twice as hard. Except nobody hit him. He just went off like a perverted lunatic, and subsequently quit.

So why are you defending him again?

I've been very clear as to my position on this. I've explained it to you over and over again.


A better question is why are you pretending to not know what a figure of speech is. That is one you keep refusing to answer.

 

[Correll]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

NOthing "beta" about pointing out the absurdity of you libs pretending to not know what a figure of speech is.

Yes, you and others are acting just like beta males whining about some 17 year old speaking on national tv. Conservatives love to speak about how manly and tough they are, how they are alpha males and leaders, yet your true colors come out whenever you are removed from your safe space.

Beta.

None of us are complaining about Hogg speaking.


You are welcome to shove your "whining" shit up your ass, btw.


You got anything else, or are you done, tough guy?

 

[ATL]

LoL, a 17 year old kid is making the hard right act like snowflake melting betas.

How pathetic.

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

NOthing "beta" about pointing out the absurdity of you libs pretending to not know what a figure of speech is.

Yes, you and others are acting just like beta males whining about some 17 year old speaking on national tv. Conservatives love to speak about how manly and tough they are, how they are alpha males and leaders, yet your true colors come out whenever you are removed from your safe space.

Beta.

None of us are complaining about Hogg speaking.


You are welcome to shove your "whining" shit up your ass, btw.


You got anything else, or are you done, tough guy?

LoL. I can visualize the spittle flying out of your mouth as you pound on your keyboard with vigor.

 

[Crepitus]

Another anally obsessed con.

Yeah, never turn your back on a republican with anything that could be described as a poker.

 

[Correll]

What are you talking about?

Your comportment over the course of this thread.

NOthing "beta" about pointing out the absurdity of you libs pretending to not know what a figure of speech is.

Yes, you and others are acting just like beta males whining about some 17 year old speaking on national tv. Conservatives love to speak about how manly and tough they are, how they are alpha males and leaders, yet your true colors come out whenever you are removed from your safe space.

Beta.

None of us are complaining about Hogg speaking.


You are welcome to shove your "whining" shit up your ass, btw.


You got anything else, or are you done, tough guy?

LoL. I can visualize the spittle flying out of your mouth as you pound on your keyboard with vigor.

1. It's nice that you have a rich fantasy life.

2. My point stands. None of us are complaining about Hogg speaking.

3. YOu are welcome to shove your "whining" shit up your ass.

4. You got anything else, or you done, tough guy?

 

[Correll]

Another anally obsessed con.

Yeah, never turn your back on a republican with anything that could be described as a poker.

Another lefty pretending to not understand the concept of figures of speech.