NRA to NYT: We're coming for you

The right's been telling us since time immemorial that right and wrong are universal and immutable.

That video is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's dishonest, slanderous, and threatens violence. It's mean-spirited and the whole purpose for it is to make more money for big business while manipulating the opinions of people who apparently don't know any better.

Your claiming that "it's a matter of opinion" doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. I think I'll just be smug and Republican-like, and consider you "immoral" for supporting immoral behavior. You're okay with that, right?

So you were responding to someone else by attempting to answer my question which had nothing to do with the " someone else"? That's a little confusing for anyone to follow I would say.

You must have an opinion why Trump made the gesture, surely. You complain that no one wants a responsible discussion and they don't listen to other peoples opinion but yet you're not willing to offer an opinion when one asks you a straight forward question.This is your chance to do so..I'm listening!

You said it stood for power or resist....which one do you think Trump used it for Power or Resist?

I have seen the way you share your opinion. It doesn't seem like you are interested in discussing in a civilized manner. I have seen you tear in to people and it's unbecoming. And yes I have seen people tear in to you as well. I'm not going there. Feel free to share your opinion. I'm not going to argue with you. 

Everyone has a right to their opinion. But it is too simplistic to say that all we are dealing with is a difference of opinion.

Would you say that Hitler and his supporters simply had a different opinion than others, so therefore people should just let them be?

We're not talking about Hitler, we're talking about a claim that there is only one opinion allowed on this video or you aren't worth engaging.

Great. You just wanna throw out a baseless character attack and refuse to back it up. Got it.
Says more about you than it does about me.

Please, just don't engage. It's circular arguing.

We own guns. The NRA is disgusting. That's my opinion. Yes, it's subjective.

Whoa. So she's angry at the reporting of the truth, and she has guns. And she's coming for us.

After a video like that, NRA wonders why many call them extreme and unhinged?

Well I'm not sure The NY Times is reporting a "clear & present bias for one side" but I know Fox News is so why don't you go find some liberal group who is " calling Fox News on it" in the same vein as the NRA so we can compare.  You like to show comparisons so this should be easy peasy for you.

Otherwise without a comparison it's just a rabid woman threatening those who, how do you always put it, don't have the "right"  opinion.  

Oh @fred,

You have the wrong view, are not if the correct opinion, your thoughts don't matter, nor do any real facts that counter the biased crap put forth!

It's a Trumpism--you're wrong, are always wrong, and always will be wrong!!!!

😆😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣

As Far as Fox News, according to the Harvard study, they provided the most even-handed coverage, with 52 percent anti-Trump coverage to 48 percent positive.


So, understanding that she's not angry at the reporting of the truth, but that she's fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable, do you still see THAT as extreme and unhinged based on HER point?

I saw someone who's fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable. I don't find that batshit crazy in the least.
Very specifically what did she say or do in that video that was batshit crazy?

You should go ahead and tune him out and listen to what New York Times editor Liz Spayd is saying about showing a clear and present bias at the NYTimes. 
The other link may be an opinion piece, but it's stating the fact that New York Times’ media columnist, Jim Rutenberg is ADMITING to bias at the paper AND saying it's justified. 


Yes they are.

No one is ignoring that, I absolutely, whole heartedly, agree with that. 
The rest of your many paragraphs are fighting an argument no one is making. 

So now that you understand, that I agree and have repeatedly agreed and even said as much on my own, that Trump is his own worst enemy, a buffoon and everything else you can say about him, can you now understand that the NYTimes is admitting a bias for one side, Dana Loesch is fed up and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable? Can you explain now, how that is threatening violence?

The NRA is spending money to pitch the media in particular as a threat to gun owners.

By creating ads such as this--they are attacking and threatening anyone not in agreement with THEIR ideals.

"The goal of the NRA isn’t directly to affect gun sales, but there’s a clearly a correlation between how urgently people want to buy guns and how urgently they feel the need to give to LaPierre’s group.

That means that there needs to be a threat that necessitates both gun sales and NRA memberships. With Obama gone and Clinton back home in Chappaqua, that role is now filled by the “violent left” and the media. Since the violent left is a bit nebulous, it seems that the media will enjoy the majority of the NRA’s focus."



And Fox News has consistently biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.

NYT is being attacked for reporting what trump tweets or says on a daily basis. He happens to be POTUS --THAT is NOT media bias.

Putting out threatening ads (specifically and purposefully intended to incite) because you don't like what someone has reported on, well that's threatening the freedoms of press, it's giving permission to take action against those who don't believe the same, it's riling up the troops getting them frothy. She wasn't just having a conversation with another person--she was using the weight of the NRA behind her when she said "were coming for you" (and leaving it up to each individual viewing to guess or surmise just what she meant), and the NRA is all about guns....thus the violence part.

We have LEO in the family--THEY think the ad was threatening and over the top. Other NRA members have publicly stated the same.

The NYT (and other media) feel it was a threat, she specifically named reporters who feel that their physical safety could be jeopardized.

So, with that I'm sure that because one person on a small internet group doesn't agree that the ad was bat shit crazy and/does not meet her threshold of threatening violence, it won't change the minds of what many others including NRA members are vocally denouncing of those same ad(s).

Denying that they are over the top and threatening to many says more about you than it does about the masses who find them otherwise.