Capco

IF that ends up being the actual front page, then I'd agree that the headline should've included "assassination" over "shooting". But as of right now, that is just some random person on the interwebs and it's best to withhold judgments like yours until it's hot off the presses.

It's very frustrating when the other team already knows your playbook. And your frustration is evident. I think it might take a bit longer than that, but I like your optimism.

He's got a lot of good quips like that. Honestly though, it did kind of bug my football side when I saw so many yellow towel-waving Yinzers in the crowd.

Sounds like the PA I know.

Tbf, I had that exact same thought about the exact same line you quoted. Even though you're correct that it's an apples to oranges comparison, some folks on the right can't even go as far as agreeing to that. One lone nutjob is enough for them to play the "rhetoric incited this violence" card, yet they can't even acknowledge the same about J6. It's just wild.

As I stated earlier, it basically comes down to consistency versus hypocrisy. Either it's wrong to espouse rhetoric that incites violent acts and is something that should be held to account, or it is not. If the violence of J6 wasn't incited by rhetoric, then this assassination wasn't either. And if this assassination was the result of rhetoric, then J6 was too. But no matter what, you can't ignore it when your tribe does it, and then cry foul when the shoe is on the other foot.

Not a good look bud. And I even refreshed the page twice to give you a chance to edit it.

@Tiberius If you still have a headache, I think this one definitely needs to get laid fwiw 🤣

Dear Sir/Madame/It, I regretfully inform you that you failed to sign your previous correspondence and hence I cannot verify its authenticity. Yours in harmony, Lord Cap of House Co, 1st Viscount Co

At least load the last page before posting. Now you look kind of ######ed for not doing so. HOW IS THAT CENSORED?! Commie mods.

He just posted like two posts before yours... How to say "I don't bother reading" without saying it.

Sometimes FUing helps that 😂

I hope the former president is not severely injured and makes a full recovery, but there was a heck of a lot more bodily harm done overall on J6 than to his ear.

I have seen someone's ear bitten by a dog, in no more than the cartilage area you speak of, and there was a similar amount of blood.

Here's the thing: either it's wrong to espouse rhetoric that incites violent acts and is something that should be held to account, or it is not. But no matter what, you can't ignore it when your tribe does it, and then cry foul when the shoe is on the other foot.

Lol. Maybe I should have said down to earth instead. Like the opposite of getting too caught up in the rhetoric. Regardless, I thought your comment was a well-timed change up and lightened the mood for a bit.

This is why I don't mind our other conversations. You're a completely straight shooter and have no problems making a joke like that. It's hard not to respect, even if we aren't politically aligned. Although iirc, we agree more than we disagree.

So you're saying that speech should be held to account when it can incite people to violent actions like an assassination attempt? Or even maybe... oh idk... a riot in the capitol?

I love that man so much, even if we have some policy differences.

I almost spit out my drink lmao. 5 stars 👍

I actually have no idea how accountability was handled in previous assassination attempts. But I'd assume that someone has always been held accountable in some fashion. Again though, I don't know how far up the food chain that went and whether previous SS directors have resigned in the past. If this is the first time ever that an SS director has been asked to resign, then I contend that suggestion is political in nature, not practical. In the event that no one has ever been held accountable in any single previous assassination attempt, then now is as good a time to start as ever.

Fwiw boyst, right on man and good for you. I don't necessarily disagree either.... But a lot of the other posters on here are basically dumbfounded at the idea that their side would ever do something retaliatory and instead hold the moral high ground. The content of your ideas isn't why I quoted you per se. It's because you've literally stated that retaliation isn't out of the question, which is exactly that which @Roundybout and I predicted. Honestly it's a bit confusing.

Makes me wonder how the hammer fell after previous assassination attempts. If a resignation has never happened before, then that suggestion is clearly politically motivated. But if that's been the norm in the past, then I agree with continuing the practice.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for making my point.

I'm seeing a whole lot of anger on the right aimed towards the left right now (including examples littering this very thread), and anger is a common prerequisite to violence. The phrases "tit for tat" and "an eye for an eye" didn't just appear out of thin air.