So, now it is Owens fault she was verbally assaulted and has nothing to do with Auntie Maxine telling people they need to harass all Trump supporters?

Charlie Kirk also had a drink thrown at him. That goes beyond verbally assaulted, but I notice like most liberals, you choose to bend the story to what fits your narrative.

I'm not excusing the people who yell outside restaurants and throw drinks.  I wouldn't behave that way and neither would you.
I'm just asking you to see that these are the desired outcomes for the "Turning Point USA" organization.  More strife gives more visibility, more clicks, and more money. They are an entertainment organization that has no more connection to real news or real political philosophy than WWE has to competitive sports.

No it's not.  You can get clicks without being threatened, called a race traitor and have drinks thrown on you. Just because someone makes a controversial statement doesn't mean they should be considered "Fair Game" for abuse by homeless people...  I mean liberals.

---

I agree that no one has a right to harass her.
You're saying that people on the right never went out and harassed whatever the left wing version of Candace Owens is.  But who is the left wing version of Candace Owens?  Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are both clearly going for humor, and Maher attacks the left as well as the right at times.  Goldberg isn't usually trying to be funny, but The View is not a monologue the way what Owens or Tomi Lahren do is a monologue.

So what you are claiming is that Jon Stewart isn't a left wing ideologue because he hides behind a claim of "humor?"  Jon Stewart is immune from attacks because he hides behind that claim? They are exactly the same and you really are clueless. Just because you fail to recognize a left wing version of Candice Owens doesn't even address the point that the attacks are almost universally from the Left.

And based on your previous "she asked for it" defense of the attack on Candice Owens, you must be on board with the stoning of rape victims because they "asked for it" and thus the rapist is not the one at fault. Do you ever read what you post before you post it?

That's outrageous.  There are all sorts of logical stopping points and differences between what I said and your "you must be on board with" comment.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So what you are claiming is that Jon Stewart isn't a left wing ideologue because he hides behind a claim of "humor?"  Jon Stewart is immune from attacks because he hides behind that claim? They are exactly the same and you really are clueless. Just because you fail to recognize a left wing version of Candice Owens doesn't even address the point that the attacks are almost universally from the Left.

And based on your previous "she asked for it" defense of the attack on Candice Owens, you must be on board with the stoning of rape victims because they "asked for it" and thus the rapist is not the one at fault. Do you ever read what you post before you post it?

That's outrageous.  There are all sorts of logical stopping points and differences between what I said and your "you must be on board with" comment.

They are both based on the same "she asked for it" logic. You can view them as different but they aren't.

I don't see any posts by you on the football boards. Are you posting on the football boards as "JUNGLE CAT 2017" or do you only come here to post politics?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'm not excusing the people who yell outside restaurants and throw drinks.  I wouldn't behave that way and neither would you.
I'm just asking you to see that these are the desired outcomes for the "Turning Point USA" organization.  More strife gives more visibility, more clicks, and more money. They are an entertainment organization that has no more connection to real news or real political philosophy than WWE has to competitive sports.

No it's not.  You can get clicks without being threatened, called a race traitor and have drinks thrown on you. Just because someone makes a controversial statement doesn't mean they should be considered "Fair Game" for abuse by homeless people...  I mean liberals.

Sure there's a lot of ways to get clicks.
You can get clicks while putting forward a right wing point of view in a way that still respects the dignity of your opponent. In a way that doesn't strawman them or beg the question. Ben Shapiro does a decent job, as does Glenn Beck. Rush sometimes makes an honest effort at it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's outrageous.  There are all sorts of logical stopping points and differences between what I said and your "you must be on board with" comment.

They are both based on the same "she asked for it" logic. You can view them as different but they aren't.

I don't see any posts by you on the football boards. Are you posting on the football boards as "JUNGLE CAT 2017" or do you only come here to post politics?

There are a lot of reasons why you're wrong.
But this is a personal topic and I'm a man. I come across as enough of a know-it-all without attempting to explain something I'll probably never experience to another person who is probably a man and also probably will never experience it.
in my opinion people like Candace Owens want to be in the news for pissing liberals off. their target audience often has the thought process of "I don't know if they are right or wrong but they're pissing the right people off." Candace Owens gets a clear benefit from being in the news this way.
On the other hand, when a man says, "she was asking for it," in a sexual assualt context, it usually doesn't make any sense.  What does the woman gain by "asking for it" sexually and then denying that consent was offered later?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They are both based on the same "she asked for it" logic. You can view them as different but they aren't.

I don't see any posts by you on the football boards. Are you posting on the football boards as "JUNGLE CAT 2017" or do you only come here to post politics?

There are a lot of reasons why you're wrong.
But this is a personal topic and I'm a man. I come across as enough of a know-it-all without attempting to explain something I'll probably never experience to another person who is probably a man and also probably will never experience it.
in my opinion people like Candace Owens want to be in the news for pissing liberals off. their target audience often has the thought process of "I don't know if they are right or wrong but they're pissing the right people off." Candace Owens gets a clear benefit from being in the news this way.
On the other hand, when a man says, "she was asking for it," in a sexual assualt context, it usually doesn't make any sense.  What does the woman gain by "asking for it" sexually and then denying that consent was offered later?

I am not familiar with Candace Owens other than what I've read recently, but I doubt she wanted to be attacked like she was. I see you are still using the "she asked for it" rationalization.

Can you at least admit that the physical and verbal confrontations of politically-oriented people going about their daily business is predominantly (overwhelmingly) a Left attacking Right phenomenon?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There are a lot of reasons why you're wrong.
But this is a personal topic and I'm a man. I come across as enough of a know-it-all without attempting to explain something I'll probably never experience to another person who is probably a man and also probably will never experience it.
in my opinion people like Candace Owens want to be in the news for pissing liberals off. their target audience often has the thought process of "I don't know if they are right or wrong but they're pissing the right people off." Candace Owens gets a clear benefit from being in the news this way.
On the other hand, when a man says, "she was asking for it," in a sexual assualt context, it usually doesn't make any sense.  What does the woman gain by "asking for it" sexually and then denying that consent was offered later?

I am not familiar with Candace Owens other than what I've read recently, but I doubt she wanted to be attacked like she was. I see you are still using the "she asked for it" rationalization.

Can you at least admit that the physical and verbal confrontations of politically-oriented people going about their daily business is predominantly (overwhelmingly) a Left attacking Right phenomenon?

Lately, yes.  Sometimes I could argue that a certain vice is on both sides of the political spectrum, but in this case the two sides are too different.  Some on the left have decided that Trump is on the verge of establishing himself as a fascist dictator, so new means of political resistance are called for.  The conclusion is reasonable if you accept the premise.  People on the right didn't have that same fear about Obama.
The other difference is that ever since Rush Limbaugh became famous, the right has over-indulged in politics as entertainment and are now used to the idea that they can insult and mock their opponents while giving them no opportunity to respond.  The Left doesn't do this.  Left leaning programs and hosts are nearly always deliberate about inviting competing perspectives, or, failing that, they make it clearer that their program is comedy and entertainment, not information. Too many on the right believe these hosts are sincerely offering complete information and they build up a whole false system of belief around these hosts without realizing it. People on the left see this and want to break the echo chamber in the name of truth and justice and the American way.  Chanting in front of restaurants seems odd, but think about it more deeply.  Part of these hosts' schtick is that they never have to respond to a sincere, informed, and articulate person with a competing perspective.  They seem tough.  Even President Trump had to do debates with his opponents.  Candace Owens? Not so much.  If you wanted to take her down a notch and show that she was not so tough and not so smart, how else can you go about it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I am not familiar with Candace Owens other than what I've read recently, but I doubt she wanted to be attacked like she was. I see you are still using the "she asked for it" rationalization.

Can you at least admit that the physical and verbal confrontations of politically-oriented people going about their daily business is predominantly (overwhelmingly) a Left attacking Right phenomenon?

Lately, yes.  Sometimes I could argue that a certain vice is on both sides of the political spectrum, but in this case the two sides are too different.  Some on the left have decided that Trump is on the verge of establishing himself as a fascist dictator, so new means of political resistance are called for.  The conclusion is reasonable if you accept the premise.  People on the right didn't have that same fear about Obama.
The other difference is that ever since Rush Limbaugh became famous, the right has over-indulged in politics as entertainment and are now used to the idea that they can insult and mock their opponents while giving them no opportunity to respond.  The Left doesn't do this.  Left leaning programs and hosts are nearly always deliberate about inviting competing perspectives, or, failing that, they make it clearer that their program is comedy and entertainment, not information. Too many on the right believe these hosts are sincerely offering complete information and they build up a whole false system of belief around these hosts without realizing it. People on the left see this and want to break the echo chamber in the name of truth and justice and the American way.  Chanting in front of restaurants seems odd, but think about it more deeply.  Part of these hosts' schtick is that they never have to respond to a sincere, informed, and articulate person with a competing perspective.  They seem tough.  Even President Trump had to do debates with his opponents.  Candace Owens? Not so much.  If you wanted to take her down a notch and show that she was not so tough and not so smart, how else can you go about it?

How high were you when you wrote this claptrap?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No it's not.  You can get clicks without being threatened, called a race traitor and have drinks thrown on you. Just because someone makes a controversial statement doesn't mean they should be considered "Fair Game" for abuse by homeless people...  I mean liberals.

Sure there's a lot of ways to get clicks.
You can get clicks while putting forward a right wing point of view in a way that still respects the dignity of your opponent. In a way that doesn't strawman them or beg the question. Ben Shapiro does a decent job, as does Glenn Beck. Rush sometimes makes an honest effort at it.

And the same homeless loons are the reason Shapiro (who I believe has done a lot for tpusa) needs 70 sheriff's to walk into some college campuses and why Tom sowell doesn't have his name on his office.  

But please show me the strawman that justifies drinks being poured on people by angry mobs.

---

There are a lot of reasons why you're wrong.
But this is a personal topic and I'm a man. I come across as enough of a know-it-all without attempting to explain something I'll probably never experience to another person who is probably a man and also probably will never experience it.
in my opinion people like Candace Owens want to be in the news for pissing liberals off. their target audience often has the thought process of "I don't know if they are right or wrong but they're pissing the right people off." Candace Owens gets a clear benefit from being in the news this way.
On the other hand, when a man says, "she was asking for it," in a sexual assualt context, it usually doesn't make any sense.  What does the woman gain by "asking for it" sexually and then denying that consent was offered later?

I am not familiar with Candace Owens other than what I've read recently, but I doubt she wanted to be attacked like she was. I see you are still using the "she asked for it" rationalization.

Can you at least admit that the physical and verbal confrontations of politically-oriented people going about their daily business is predominantly (overwhelmingly) a Left attacking Right phenomenon?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I am not familiar with Candace Owens other than what I've read recently, but I doubt she wanted to be attacked like she was. I see you are still using the "she asked for it" rationalization.

Can you at least admit that the physical and verbal confrontations of politically-oriented people going about their daily business is predominantly (overwhelmingly) a Left attacking Right phenomenon?

MB hof

---

Professor apologizes after calling GOP candidate nice guy on Twitter.  

NONCONFORMIST!!!!

---

Professor apologizes after calling GOP candidate nice guy on Twitter.  

NONCONFORMIST!!!!

I guess we know JFCs Twitter handle now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The hate got this one prison time.

---