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

[Dragonlady]

I view David Hogg as no different than an 8 year old kid that plays up a division with the 9 and 10 year olds in soccer (or any sport). If the kid is willing and able and the parents allow it then there's nothing wrong with the 8 year old playing up. But that doesn't mean the 9 and 10 year old kids are required to take it easy on him. At 17, David Hogg is playing up in the adult world by doing things that affect adults. He's willing and able and so are his parents. Likewise, he's fair game for criticism just like another other adult.

To use your analogy, the other kids aren’t required to “take it easy on him”, but they are required to play by the rules of the game. Nowhere in the rules of public debate, is it considered to be within the rules of public discourse to say you want to “shove a red hot poker up anyone’s ass” because they disagree with their politics.

Why are you defending this asshat?

 

[Correll]

Starting a sentence with “I’m going to” is highly indicative that there is no figurative speech involved.

NO, it isn't.


Plenty of figures of speech start off like that.

 

[Correll]

You know very well that he was not going to ram a red hot poker up the kid's ass.


He was speaking FIGURATIVELY.


As you know.


You are one of the fucking liars I was referring to.

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

 

[Correll]

Hogg would like it. That's the way the liberals play.

Well, now you've devolved into another stupid asshole.

Says the man defending the idea that the news anchor was literally going to heat a poker, to red hot and shove it up his interviewees anus, on national television.



You should really be slower to call other people stupid. Or assholes.


Just saying.

You should be careful building Straw Men. Never did I write or imply that jerk meant to do that literally. Why post such a lie, are you that desperate for attention?

You jumped into my conversation to side with Bodecia, who was making that argument. You defended her logic and the loss of the man's job.

You certainly did not voice any support from my position, that it was a metaphor, and you have certainly attacked me and my position.


Are you now siding with me, that it was just a metaphor, and those who are claiming to not know that are filthy liars?

 

[bodecea]

Starting a sentence with “I’m going to” is highly indicative that there is no figurative speech involved.

NO, it isn't.


Plenty of figures of speech start off like that.

Sure....in CloudCuckooLand.


So....if I were to say "I'm going to shoot trump".....there's that figurative speech going on.


Right?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

David Hogg would probably enjoy it.

"Hit Me Again, Tray Honey! I Won't Shoot You."

The Antiffie darling definitely projects a sado-masochistic image, pretty much the opposite of George Zimmerman's.

 

[Correll]

Another anally obsessed con.

BINGO! x 2. I'm 60+ and curse like a sailor. I have never used a colon ASSAULT metaphor to make my point. The fact that this vile POS used this about a KID makes my blood boil! The fact they GO to physical and sexual violence FREQUENTLY speaks volumes.
...]

No, it doesn't.


Everyone knows what he meant. Some choose to be fucking liars.

He meant to assault a teenaged boy with a red hot poker up his ass. He said it quite clearly. And good riddance to him. Now he can run for office on the GOP ticket.

You know very well that he was not going to ram a red hot poker up the kid's ass.


He was speaking FIGURATIVELY.


As you know.


You are one of the fucking liars I was referring to.

The idiot used violent pornographic imagery in response to an underage boy. A grown man with a TV news job and the public platform that comes with it, and this is how he expresses his views.

Regardless of whether he was speaking figuratively or literally it was a bonehead and entirely inappropriate public remark.

And if you need to gave that explained to you, you’re not terribly bright yourself.

You don't get to demand that Hogg's words be treated with respect and then use the "Child" card to demand that he not be treated with the same level of hardball that he has been happy to dish out.


And it is not pornographic. If you find the idea of impalement on red hot irons to be sexual, that is on you.


TO the rest of us, it is a violent metaphor, and somewhat vulgar. But it was a comment on social media, not public airways.


You are the one here who is justifying censorship.

 

[OldLady]

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

Correll, of course I have said all of those things personally (well maybe not about the dog) in the privacy of my own home or with my circle of friends (NOT on social media). I would never stand in front of my class and tell one of my students "I'm gonna stick a hot poker up Wayne LaPierre's ass." Or up anyone else's ass because I didn't agree with them. First off, I would never say anything that aggressively hostile to begin with, but more importantly, it is not how debate or civil disagreement is handled.
And you STILL are arguing that it is FINE, all day long you've been at it. I thought you were better than this Correll.

 

[bodecea]

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

Correll, of course I have said all of those things personally (well maybe not about the dog) in the privacy of my own home or with my circle of friends (NOT on social media). I would never stand in front of my class and tell one of my students "I'm gonna stick a hot poker up Wayne LaPierre's ass." Or up anyone else's ass because I didn't agree with them. First off, I would never say anything that aggressively hostile to begin with, but more importantly, it is not how debate or civil disagreement is handled.
And you STILL are arguing that it is FINE, all day long you've been at it. I thought you were better than this Correll.

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

 

[Witchit]

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

I never said I was going to sodomize her, though.

See - you have no boundaries, no concept of what is acceptable. You think it's ALL acceptable, no matter how heinous, and WE'RE the problem for saying there's a problem.

 

[Correll]

Starting a sentence with “I’m going to” is highly indicative that there is no figurative speech involved.

NO, it isn't.


Plenty of figures of speech start off like that.

Sure....in CloudCuckooLand.


So....if I were to say "I'm going to shoot trump".....there's that figurative speech going on.


Right?

Death Threats against a President are a special case. As you well know, liar.




I note that you did not challenge me to offer any examples to prove my claim.


Because you know it would be easy for me to do.

 

[OldLady]

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

I never said I was going to sodomize her, though.

See - you have no boundaries, no concept of what is acceptable. You think it's ALL acceptable, no matter how heinous, and WE'RE the problem for saying there's a problem.

No, you're taking it too far to say the guy meant to literally sodomize the kid. I'm sure that was not what he meant. It doesn't make it anymore right, though, that he didn't mean it literally.

 

[OldLady]

BINGO! x 2. I'm 60+ and curse like a sailor. I have never used a colon ASSAULT metaphor to make my point. The fact that this vile POS used this about a KID makes my blood boil! The fact they GO to physical and sexual violence FREQUENTLY speaks volumes.
...]

No, it doesn't.


Everyone knows what he meant. Some choose to be fucking liars.

He meant to assault a teenaged boy with a red hot poker up his ass. He said it quite clearly. And good riddance to him. Now he can run for office on the GOP ticket.

You know very well that he was not going to ram a red hot poker up the kid's ass.


He was speaking FIGURATIVELY.


As you know.


You are one of the fucking liars I was referring to.

The idiot used violent pornographic imagery in response to an underage boy. A grown man with a TV news job and the public platform that comes with it, and this is how he expresses his views.

Regardless of whether he was speaking figuratively or literally it was a bonehead and entirely inappropriate public remark.

And if you need to gave that explained to you, you’re not terribly bright yourself.

You don't get to demand that Hogg's words be treated with respect and then use the "Child" card to demand that he not be treated with the same level of hardball that he has been happy to dish out.


And it is not pornographic. If you find the idea of impalement on red hot irons to be sexual, that is on you.


TO the rest of us, it is a violent metaphor, and somewhat vulgar. But it was a comment on social media, not public airways.


You are the one here who is justifying censorship.

Since when is social media not a "public airway?" If you are posting under your name, it sure is public.
And buddy, if not letting that kind of statement on public airways is "censorship," it is absolutely fine with me. Deal with not being able to be completely obscene except in your own backyard.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He meant to assault a teenaged boy with a red hot poker up his ass. He said it quite clearly. And good riddance to him. Now he can run for office on the GOP ticket.

You know very well that he was not going to ram a red hot poker up the kid's ass.


He was speaking FIGURATIVELY.


As you know.


You are one of the fucking liars I was referring to.

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

Shun and Shame Them Into Silently Living in the Shadows

Why should we debate with them? If we weren't at least partially brainwashed to accept them as rational opponents, we'd see through their sick agitation and consider everything they put up for debate to be as outrageous as, "Should the United States convert to Islam?"

 

[Dragonlady]

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

I can truthfully say I have never said a single one of those things to anyone. As a child, I learned that if I lost my temper because of something someone else did or said, The other person had won. As a result, I learned to control my temper, and not say or do stupid things.

I have had two mantras through out my adult life: don’t make promises you can’t keep, and don’t make threats you can’t follow through on. My children knew that if I made a threat, it would happen.

As a teenager learning to train horses, the old horse trainer who mentored me said “If you lose your temper with your horse, put him in the barn. The horse has won. Nothing good will be accomplished this day”. This advice has served me well, not just with training horses, but in raising children and in dealing with people in general.

This idiot lost his temper and then told the world just how angry he was. And he got himself fired.

Contrast this with David Hogg. When attacked, he didn’t call anyone names, or insult them. He spoke out calmly, with purpose and an objective. And he got the results he wanted.

By all means, keep lashing out and attacking these kids. They’re clearly more mature and emotionally grounded than those who seek to silence them.

 

[OldLady]

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

Correll, of course I have said all of those things personally (well maybe not about the dog) in the privacy of my own home or with my circle of friends (NOT on social media). I would never stand in front of my class and tell one of my students "I'm gonna stick a hot poker up Wayne LaPierre's ass." Or up anyone else's ass because I didn't agree with them. First off, I would never say anything that aggressively hostile to begin with, but more importantly, it is not how debate or civil disagreement is handled.
And you STILL are arguing that it is FINE, all day long you've been at it. I thought you were better than this Correll.

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.

 

[Correll]

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

Correll, of course I have said all of those things personally (well maybe not about the dog) in the privacy of my own home or with my circle of friends (NOT on social media). I would never stand in front of my class and tell one of my students "I'm gonna stick a hot poker up Wayne LaPierre's ass." Or up anyone else's ass because I didn't agree with them. First off, I would never say anything that aggressively hostile to begin with, but more importantly, it is not how debate or civil disagreement is handled.
And you STILL are arguing that it is FINE, all day long you've been at it. I thought you were better than this Correll.

Social Media, is a grey area, some people consider it more private than others.


You admit that you have said, similar, though less course, figures of speech in private.



Thank you for your honesty on that. Several of the liberals are pretending that such figures of speech do not exist. THey are liars.



I am against censorship. That is what this is about.


This is David HOgg.



"It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. "What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs."



He's not playing nice. It is not reasonable to expect people to take that type of abuse and smile and nod politely in return.

 

[OldLady]

You know very well that he was not going to ram a red hot poker up the kid's ass.


He was speaking FIGURATIVELY.


As you know.


You are one of the fucking liars I was referring to.

Like if someone figuratively said they were going to shoot the leader of the free world? So when they do that, why do they get a visit from the Secret Service?

Funny how nobody can ever say what it is supposed to be a figure of speech for. It's pretty fucking sick and graphic for meaning absolutely nothing.

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

Shun and Shame Them Into Silently Living in the Shadows

Why should we debate with them? If we weren't at least partially brainwashed to accept them as rational opponents, we'd see through their sick agitation and consider everything they put up for debate to be as outrageous as, "Should the United States convert to Islam?"

"Should the United States convert to Islam?"
You will be doing us all a great favor if you DON'T debate us.

 

[Correll]

The President is covered by very specific and special laws, covering assassination threats.


If some lefty reporter was going to interview the President and said he was going to "ram a red hot poker up his ass", he would not get a visit from the Secret Service.


You know this. Stop your lying.


This is you justifying tyranny and censorship.

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

I never said I was going to sodomize her, though.

See - you have no boundaries, no concept of what is acceptable. You think it's ALL acceptable, no matter how heinous, and WE'RE the problem for saying there's a problem.

Oh, so you're dropping your earlier pretense of not knowing it was a figure of speech?

Did you get feedback that that line of shit wasn't sticking and now you're walking it back?



If you would seriously, just a few hours ago, claim to really believe he was going to heat a poker on nation tv and assault his interviewee,


how do you expect me to believe anything you say?

 

[Correll]

I just cannot believe we are having a discussion about this. I cannot believe anyone is actually defending this type of speech by a professional against any opponent.
I. CANNOT. BELIEVE. IT.

I can't believe that a large segment of our society has embraced the idea of using censorship to silence their political opponents and thus "win" the debate.

I can't believe you. If you think there is any "debate" involved in that guy's statement, you've been hanging around USMB too long.

Yes you can.

Are you seriously claiming you never heard anyone, hell, that YOU'VE never said something along the lines of "I'm going to beat his ass" or "I'm going to kill that dog" or "I'm going to ground that kid until she is 30."?


YOu are being absurd.


And you are supporting censorship.

I never said I was going to sodomize her, though.

See - you have no boundaries, no concept of what is acceptable. You think it's ALL acceptable, no matter how heinous, and WE'RE the problem for saying there's a problem.

No, you're taking it too far to say the guy meant to literally sodomize the kid. I'm sure that was not what he meant. It doesn't make it anymore right, though, that he didn't mean it literally.

Witchit knows that.


He/she is pretending to be confused, so he can have an excuse for additional hysteria to justify, the reporter losing his job.



This is about censorship.


You will note that people like Witchit, will never make such "mistakes" or be take something "literally"


when the guy in question is a good little liberal.


This type of thing just happens, to always happen to conservatives.



And the result is ohh so self serving for their partisan jerks.