[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

Her article proposed that the shooter was influenced by a viewpoint that is held by very few as opposed to something broadcast on Fox, called as such by Trump in rallies time after time.

Keep denying, perhaps you actually believe that Trump’s speech has no effect and he is using those words to join people together to solve a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device