Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Of course no one did.
I think you'll rarely see me accusing anyone of lying. I think the term is used far too liberally, and rarely correctly. That said, Luciom is quite clearly lying here. He was called out for his silly claims in that thread and, unable to defend his nonsense in that thread like "According to the left ITT you are morally justified to want to kill people if your life sucks", he did what he always does - shifted the goalposts. When that didn't work out, he moved on, until now when he tried to toss out similar nonsense here. I can't recall a single person having said that DTA means only peaceful change, let alone it being said "repeatedly, by various people". Luciom knows that didn’t happen.
man gangsta himself said many people said that
the left ITT was the filthy something guy saying that homeless people were morally justified to say death to America.
so which is it, does death to America always imply violence, or are several people claiming that no actually it can mean to peaceful ask for radical changes? several people said that DTA doesn't automatically imply violence, which means it can be read as only peaceful change, which means it isn't according to them an inherent violent threat.
which if true... is true for the standing by as well. if there ever exist at least one interpretation in which it isn't automatically violent, for you then it's absurd to claim it is violent.
well if that is the case it had to work with any statement by anyone all the times.
OR, any statement that can be read as a violent threat is actually a violent threat.
but no for your guys on the left it's like this: statement by the left, with the actual death word in it , "could mean it metaphorically for the idea of america", not necessarily violent. statement from the right, a guy standing near the president captioning "I am standing by", obvious violent threat because an irrilevant radical right group uses a vaguely similar slogan.