Two Minnesota state lawmakers who are members of the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party were shot early Saturday by a person posing as a law enforcement officer just north of Minneapolis.
Two Minnesota state lawmakers who are members of the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party were shot early Saturday by a person posing as a law enforcement officer just north of Minneapolis.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn’t seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Uh, OK. I’ll stay by the phone.
Read the thread. You don’t see anyone in this thread that things violence is warrented?
So, nobody.
Ahhh, I guess i just read most of the comments here wrong. My bad.
So you’re saying that you and everyone in this thread agree that violence is not the answer then? No one in this thread advocates violence against the republicans. Correct?
So everyone agrees that violence is no the answer? Good, glad I was so wrong. Because I definitely think violence against any politician is wrong. Glad I am in good company and cooler heads prevail.
What does “violence is not the answer” exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don’t see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
That means that I hope no one retaliates with violence, for the awful thing that happened with the democrats shooting. And that I don’t think violence against an politician for anything is called for. What else do you think I would mean?
Ok, then I am glad this thread agrees that no one believes that violence is warranted. So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them? Correct? Good, I think that’s a sensible way to approach it. And I’m glad cooler heads are prevailing.
I’m unsure why some people seem to be annoyed that I an calling for non-violence. Especially since everyone agrees. I’m glad no one is calling for violence against politicians.
Removed by mod
Wait, so I am confused. I said that some people seemed to be for violence, and you said I was wrong. Now you are saying that a lot in this thread disagree with my statement that violence isn’t the answer.
Please disengage from this conversation. You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing. I don’t advocate violence against any politician regardless of party. I hope this shooter gets caught, stands trial, and goes to prison for rest of his life. Good day to you.
What is this, an Abbott and Costello bit? The words in a sentence are important - all of them. There are differences between people being for violence (as if that’s a thing), people recognizing that violence is sometimes necessary, people thinking that violence is appropriate in response to this issue, and people calling for violence. Those all mean different things. Maybe you throw them all in the same mental bucket, but they are not the same. This is a symptom of thinking in thought terminating cliches. That used to be a Republican thing, but its sad how often I’m seeing it now on the left.
Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing on that. The problem is when you mix that in with accusations that I (and others) support violence in cases where we don’t, or claim we are calling for violence in response to this incident when we have done no such thing.
Sure, I have no doubt that you can keep it going all by yourself. You really don’t need me for it.