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

[Correll]

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.

Just watch. A week, a month from now, some good lefty will do something equally as crude, and it will pass with barely a mention.


You are being played.


And people lives are being destroyed, and Free Speech is being assaulted.

 

[Witchit]

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?

Well, I don't believe anything you say, so why should I be alone?

I didn't reverse my stance. I find it more than a bit odd that you think I did.

 

[Witchit]

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.

Yeah, I'm not going to be your strawman.

 

[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 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.

oh, yeah, he's a peach.



"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."




You are supporting censorship.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Hogg is right. Congress and the Senate has stood by since the Brady Act was signed and done the NRA’s bidding.

The NRA used to be in favour of sensible gun laws, but under Wayne LaPierre even background checks are an assault on the 2nd Amendment. The NRA has changed and not for the better.

And those in Congress and the Senate who have sat on their hands done the NRA’s bidding, and refused to deal with the mounting body counts from schools, and other public shootings, especially since Sandy Hook, do have the blood of innocents on their hands.

 

[Witchit]

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.

oh, yeah, he's a peach.



"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."




You are supporting censorship.

He's absolutely right. They are shitty people who are putting money over humans, party over country, and there is not one thing wrong with what he said.

Further, he didn't volunteer to sodomize anyone with a hot poker.

 

[Correll]

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?

Well, I don't believe anything you say, so why should I be alone?

I didn't reverse my stance. I find it more than a bit odd that you think I did.

I find it unlikely that you truly don't believe what I say. I am a very honest person, and I think most people can sense that, after a while.


You are the one pretending to not understand normal english usage to justify censorship.


And you have certainly walked it back, from not believing it was a figure of speech to, arguing that it was inappropriate.



It is completely reasonable that you should have no credibility, while I, who have been very consistent and honest on this site, would.

 

[Correll]

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.

Yeah, I'm not going to be your strawman.

No, you're not.


What you are, is going to demonstrate, exactly the behavior, I have predicted for you.

 

[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.

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.

David Hogg used coarse language, but he did not target anyone specifically; he was speaking about the gun industry and politicians without enough spine to regulate our filthy gun habit.
I think Hogg has a lot to learn; that's kind of understandable considering his age. But to think HIS quote was somehow damnable and this newscasters wasn't makes no sense to me.
The newscaster made that remark in the public square under his own name. He wasn't censored. He was appropriately fired for inappropriate behavior. That's the trade off for being a professional in the public eye. If you don't like it, don't take a job in the public eye.

 

[Witchit]

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?

Well, I don't believe anything you say, so why should I be alone?

I didn't reverse my stance. I find it more than a bit odd that you think I did.

I find it unlikely that you truly don't believe what I say. I am a very honest person, and I think most people can sense that, after a while.


You are the one pretending to not understand normal english usage to justify censorship.


And you have certainly walked it back, from not believing it was a figure of speech to, arguing that it was inappropriate.



It is completely reasonable that you should have no credibility, while I, who have been very consistent and honest on this site, would.

Nope. I only know what I see. It doesn't take a lot of time to see that your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You've been attacking anyone who disagrees with you, simply for disagreeing with you, and not just attacking but accusing us of trying to kill free speech because this sick fuck who by the way RESIGNED said something that was absolutely heinous.

The fact that you are going to defend him when I never said he couldn't say that, as though I had in fact said that is why I do not ascribe value to the words coming off your keyboard.

The minute you twist the truth, it ceases to be the truth.

 

[hunarcy]

Hogg is right. Congress and the Senate has stood by since the Brady Act was signed and done the NRA’s bidding.-Happens in a Democracy

The NRA used to be in favour of sensible gun laws, but under Wayne LaPierre even background checks are an assault on the 2nd Amendment. The NRA has changed and not for the better.-No, the gun grabbing demands went too far.

And those in Congress and the Senate who have sat on their hands done the NRA’s bidding, and refused to deal with the mounting body counts from schools, and other public shootings, especially since Sandy Hook, do have the blood of innocents on their hands.-No one has done the bidding of the NRA. The Congress (made up of the House and Senate) have been doing what the people want them to do.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Just watch. A week, a month from now, some good lefty will do something equally as crude, and it will pass with barely a mention.


You are being played.


And people lives are being destroyed, and Free Speech is being assaulted.

I really don't believe that. You're still here, aren't you?

 

[OldLady]

Hogg is right. Congress and the Senate has stood by since the Brady Act was signed and done the NRA’s bidding.-Happens in a Democracy

The NRA used to be in favour of sensible gun laws, but under Wayne LaPierre even background checks are an assault on the 2nd Amendment. The NRA has changed and not for the better.-No, the gun grabbing demands went too far.

And those in Congress and the Senate who have sat on their hands done the NRA’s bidding, and refused to deal with the mounting body counts from schools, and other public shootings, especially since Sandy Hook, do have the blood of innocents on their hands.-No one has done the bidding of the NRA. The Congress (made up of the House and Senate) have been doing what the people want them to do.

Let's not turn the NRA into our whipping boy. Let's hold the elected officials accountable. The NRA does not vote.

 

[Correll]

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.

David Hogg used coarse language, but he did not target anyone specifically; he was speaking about the gun industry and politicians without enough spine to regulate our filthy gun habit.
I think Hogg has a lot to learn; that's kind of understandable considering his age. But to think HIS quote was somehow damnable and this newscasters wasn't makes no sense to me.
The newscaster made that remark in the public square under his own name. He wasn't censored. He was appropriately fired for inappropriate behavior. That's the trade off for being a professional in the public eye. If you don't like it, don't take a job in the public eye.

Hogg's statement targeted anyone that disagreed with him politically.


I'm not saying that he should be silenced. I'm pointing out that he is dishing it out, and liberals are using his youth to try to silence anyone that gives it back.


That's hypocrisy and dishonesty, and they it is a reoccurring tactic, with the intent of suppressing the speech of their enemies.



YOu are being played.

 

[Correll]

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?

Well, I don't believe anything you say, so why should I be alone?

I didn't reverse my stance. I find it more than a bit odd that you think I did.

I find it unlikely that you truly don't believe what I say. I am a very honest person, and I think most people can sense that, after a while.


You are the one pretending to not understand normal english usage to justify censorship.


And you have certainly walked it back, from not believing it was a figure of speech to, arguing that it was inappropriate.



It is completely reasonable that you should have no credibility, while I, who have been very consistent and honest on this site, would.

Nope. I only know what I see. It doesn't take a lot of time to see that your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You've been attacking anyone who disagrees with you, simply for disagreeing with you, and not just attacking but accusing us of trying to kill free speech because this sick fuck who by the way RESIGNED said something that was absolutely heinous.

The fact that you are going to defend him when I never said he couldn't say that, as thought I had in fact said that is why I do not ascribe value to the words coming off your keyboard.

The minute you twist the truth, it ceases to be the truth.

"Cheese"?, "Cracker"?


What are you talking about? YOu don't know what food I have at my table?


Oh, wait, was that a figure of speech?


Mmm, how ironic.


Your dishonesty is plain to see.


If the reporter in question was a good little lib, talking about an upcoming conservative guest, we would have never even heard of this and if we did, you would fully support him.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Just watch. A week, a month from now, some good lefty will do something equally as crude, and it will pass with barely a mention.


You are being played.


And people lives are being destroyed, and Free Speech is being assaulted.

So...now you are whining.
Tell you what.......start a thread on "some good lefty" doing "something equally as crude" and we'll see. Ok?

 

[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.

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.

Just watch. A week, a month from now, some good lefty will do something equally as crude, and it will pass with barely a mention.


You are being played.


And people lives are being destroyed, and Free Speech is being assaulted.

I really don't believe that. You're still here, aren't you?

Watch. Watch carefully, because when it happens, it won't get much press. And then it will be gone.


And the little hysterical libs from this thread, who were soooooooooooooooo shocked and appalled, will have some bullshit reason why it is all different.


If they acknowledge it at all.

 

[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.

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.

Just watch. A week, a month from now, some good lefty will do something equally as crude, and it will pass with barely a mention.


You are being played.


And people lives are being destroyed, and Free Speech is being assaulted.

So...now you are whining.
Tell you what.......start a thread on "some good lefty" doing "something equally as crude" and we'll see. Ok?

I made a prediction.


That you characterize it as whining, is just your way of saying you don't like what I said, but can't think of ANYTHING to say to actually address, let alone refute it.



Also, you are an asshole. Fuck you.

 

[Witchit]

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?

Well, I don't believe anything you say, so why should I be alone?

I didn't reverse my stance. I find it more than a bit odd that you think I did.

I find it unlikely that you truly don't believe what I say. I am a very honest person, and I think most people can sense that, after a while.


You are the one pretending to not understand normal english usage to justify censorship.


And you have certainly walked it back, from not believing it was a figure of speech to, arguing that it was inappropriate.



It is completely reasonable that you should have no credibility, while I, who have been very consistent and honest on this site, would.

Nope. I only know what I see. It doesn't take a lot of time to see that your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You've been attacking anyone who disagrees with you, simply for disagreeing with you, and not just attacking but accusing us of trying to kill free speech because this sick fuck who by the way RESIGNED said something that was absolutely heinous.

The fact that you are going to defend him when I never said he couldn't say that, as thought I had in fact said that is why I do not ascribe value to the words coming off your keyboard.

The minute you twist the truth, it ceases to be the truth.

"Cheese"?, "Cracker"?


What are you talking about? YOu don't know what food I have at my table?


Oh, wait, was that a figure of speech?


Mmm, how ironic.


Your dishonesty is plain to see.


If the reporter in question was a good little lib, talking about an upcoming conservative guest, we would have never even heard of this and if we did, you would fully support him.

You never saw The Green Mile?

No, it wasn't a figure of speech. It was a euphemism.

And people who see me as being dishonest right now would probably think the same if I just showed up and said nothing more than "Hey, I'm a liberal."

 

[Tilly]

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.

You take THIS literally but just minutes ago DISMISSED as nothing worth noting a poster here who said with great seriousness he would like to get black South African men to gang rape young white girls, force their parents to watch, and then kill them all?
What a freaking hypocritic of the highest order you are.