ClimateSanity
New member
I don't know. I can't see what point your making.
Law v. Order
- Thread starter rexlunae
- Start date
The point is that conservatives largely care about order and not law, and the order that they care about is essentially white, conservative, Christian rule. Therefore, they don't care about a clear case of a criminal assault against the free press. This is why the campaign's response referred to the reporter as a "liberal". You can justify anything if you can frame it in terms of preserving conservative rule.
ClimateSanity
New member
What is white order? What is conservative order? What is Christian order? Order is order.
Does order allow assault? And if so, under what conditions?
ClimateSanity
New member
They don't care about criminal assault against the free press? Defense is not assault. If the reporter was asked to leave and didn't and if the reporter initiated unwanted physical contact like the reporter did last year with lebonkowski, then any excessive response is given less harsh judgement. But must importantly, the consequences of losing seats to people who would do far worse to our country than body slamming arrogant reporters is not wise and not warranted.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's a right-wing self-justifying excuse for their war against the truth.
It's clear from the recording (Gianforte didn't recognize the reporter) that he wasn't asked to leave previously, and there's nothing to suggest that the reporter initiated physical contact. And, again, even if he had been asked to leave, his continued presence could at most invite calling the police against him, but assaulting him. Your excuses are threadbare. You're just spinning around, looking for any excuse to justify what he did.
Last edited:
Please note, I'm not endorsing what happened to the reporter. Only hearing second hand reports I have to say it's a shame it happened.
So a libertarian 'classical liberal' might be different, but not your self-described liberal/leftist that also votes Democrat without fail is the same person.
We could understand what George Orwell meant when he said "One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets – anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered’ (Orwell, p. 98)"
And, the right wing response to this would be for the politician to get a public whipping (knowing what I know so far and assuming you are correct that it was a non-provoked body slam).
That being said, you should understand the reluctance of conservatives to care about the assault. The media has been largely unfair, destroying good people simply because they don't follow the left-wing narrative. I'm not a conservative, but I know enough to understand that they probably see this as self-defense.
The problem is that the majority of self-described liberals have the same mindset that produced the Jim Crow laws. The totalitarian professor at Mizzu that was yelling for 'muscle' was a liberal. The totalitarian student that was screaming at Yale about safe spaces was a liberal.
So a libertarian 'classical liberal' might be different, but not your self-described liberal/leftist that also votes Democrat without fail is the same person.
I haven't noticed. I'm a never-Trumper who knows he is a RINO... so the best you could say is that he's given lip service to economic conservatives, but in his actions he's moved left. So I would not be surprised if he went full liberal/left.
I haven't followed it. It's a shame they are removing the monuments. Not because the good the men of the statues did outweighs the bad, but because it is history.
We could understand what George Orwell meant when he said "One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets – anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered’ (Orwell, p. 98)"
Because human nature remains the same. What do you think changed?
So you are saying this incident was for 'white order'?
And, the right wing response to this would be for the politician to get a public whipping (knowing what I know so far and assuming you are correct that it was a non-provoked body slam).
That being said, you should understand the reluctance of conservatives to care about the assault. The media has been largely unfair, destroying good people simply because they don't follow the left-wing narrative. I'm not a conservative, but I know enough to understand that they probably see this as self-defense.
Incidentally, he didn't apologize until his victory speech, until which he was spreading lies about the reporter. The guy is a liar, and a thug and he has no business in Congress.
His victory is, in large part, due to this incident.
The right has zero moral compunction where and when their self-interests are at stake.
I feel bad for the voters. I imagine there were some Republicans that didn't really want to vote for a guy who assaults a reporter but when the alternative is a Democrat winning, with all the policy issue differences, it's not hard to understand still voting for him. I don't know what power the Republican party leaders have for something like this but I feel like this is a situation where the party should step in and produce another candidate. Delay the election. Something.
What would you do if the Democrat in an election was charged with a crime the day before the election? The voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you think that Democrats would do anything different if the roles were reversed then I'd say you are naive.