Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
The hell it doesn't. It was in direct response to the threats being made. If it was stated at some other time, in some other contect, then yea, perhaps. But that's not when it happened or when it was said. This need to disagree with sirs for the sake of disagreeing with sirs is getting pretty ridiculous
What i am pointing out is your serious deficiencies in reading for content and context.
Pot, see kettle
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
It doesn't justify it there either, even if it did happen, precisely as Lewis alledged.
Exactly. and nowhere in the statement that XO made did he claim it did.
CU was the first to bring up justifying threats.
And Xo IMMEDIATELY responded to CU's reference with
Walker started it, thus justifying it.
It's a timing thing Bt. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you. And I never claimed that Xo brought it up, merely that his immediate comments justifyed the acts. So why you had a need to provide yet another deflection effort demonstrates the straws you are continually grasping at
BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation that brought the unions to the Capitol?
yea....and? IF Xo was responding to THAT and not responding to threats being made, then you'd have that proverbial rhetorical leg to stand on.
What they (unions) don't have a right to do is take the law into their own hands, and i don't see where XO said they did.
Of course you don't. You can't. Sirs & Cu4 said he did, and sirs must be wrong. Walker having started it was never really said....yea, thats it, it never happened. Its a figment of all our imaginations.