NRA to NYT: We're coming for you

1.   Just where is Rutenberg admitting to being bias?

2.  No I don't see that The NY Times is being bias.

3.  And while you say the words on how trump is a buffoon etc I don't believe you mean it.

4. The ad lady is threatening through intimidation.   The NRA is a gun organization that believes the only way to handle a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.  The NRA sees themselves as the good guys.   

I agree. It's not worth it to argue with some people. It gets nowhere. In fact, I think some love the turmoil that they cause. We should ignore it. 
I am not anti-gun. I have family who are gun owners. The ad goes too far and does not represent the opinion of the gun owners that I know.

More than one person has pointed it out.

You refuse to read, acknowledge, whatever it is that you do to attempt to process what others have said.

It's obvious that what you deem as threats of violence is non-existent especially in comparison of what and who you deem as "irrational". Your definitions don't line up with your he normal meaning of the word.

Perspective and context is and has been a problem for you for a long time, so it's no surprise that you refuse to see or acknowledge that many others, including NRA members have said about it now.

There is always the rest of the story.  Embedded in the Hill article is the piece I believe you are referring to.  The same article by the way that ends with the quote where Jim says you got to stick to the facts.  

You used the quote "conducting his campaign in ways we've normally not seen" to suggest a reason for not doing "objective" reporting on him.  In one sense that is correct but not in the way you suggest.

Here is the part of the column column leading up to the quote....

"Yet there was Mr. Scarborough on Wednesday asking the former Central Intelligence Agency director Michael V. Hayden whether there were safeguards in place to ensure that if Mr. Trump “gets angry, he can’t launch a nuclear weapon,” given the perception that he might not be “the most stable guy.”

Then Mr. Scarborough shared an alarming conversation he said he had with a “foreign policy expert” who had given Mr. Trump a national security briefing. “Three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons,” Mr. Scarborough said, describing one of the questions as “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

Speaking with me later, Mr. Scarborough, a Republican, said he had not contemplated sharing the anecdote with the audience until just before he did.

“When that discussion came up, I really didn’t have a choice,” Mr. Scarborough said. “That was something I thought Americans needed to know.”

Mr. Trump has denied Mr. Scarborough’s account. (He told The New York Times in March he would use nuclear weapons as “an absolutely last step.” But when the MSNBC host Chris Matthews challenged him for raising the possibility he would use them, Mr. Trump asked, “Then why are we making them?”)

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?”

Mr. Scarborough is on the opinion side of the news business. It’s much dodgier for conventional news reporters to treat this year’s political debate as one between “normal” and “abnormal,” as the Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein put it recently.

In a sense, that’s just what reporters are doing. And it’s unavoidable. Because Mr. Trump is conducting his campaign in ways we’ve not normally seen." 


The Vox story is embedded in Rutenberg's column that's embedded in the Hill article. 

Now that you have the rest of the story its clear what you are implying ain't so.  Unless you think it was bias reporting when Scarborough made the comments that he did and his voiced his  concern.
 
As to Liz Spayd she admitted that she misspoke in the Tucker interview.  She didn't have all the facts.  Those pesky facts again. 

And as to the NRA ad  if you don't "see it" then it's on you and no amount of explaining is going to change that. 

1. Don't you tell me what I can and cannot post.

2. Yes, several of us have said exactly what makes it threatening-just because YOU don't get it does not make it not there.

3. Last paragraph of @fred's post says it all.

Nice..once again you try to attribute words to someone that they DID NOT SAY. You've done it AT LEAST 3 times in the last few days TO MYSELF AND OTHERS.

I DID NOT ADVOCATE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

MY COMMENTS WERE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS OF YOUR POSTING HISTORY & RESPONSES. I pointed out that you have an issue with relevance and context, which once again you are doing here.

AND ONCE AGAIN, if YOU cannot understand what several have pointed out, as well as many of the NRA, other media outlets who have all agreed and stated quite publicly that the ad advocates/incites/invites violence then no amount of explaining it over and over and over and over and over again is going to do you any good. You stay in that tiny narrow little bubble you operate out of--we'll be fine without your purposeful obtuseness.

Just because YOU don't believe it does not make it any less true to the many others who see it, have said so, and were rightly disgusted by it.

Then explain what EXACTLY this is in reference too:

I was having an intelligent conversation. In return what I got back was:
in response to a list of non-threatening statements "we think they are threatening violence and no we will not explain which ones are and how we see non-threatening words as threatening violence"
"you're a trouble maker for asking"
"this is the only opinion allowed here, if you don't hold that opinion you are not worth engaging" 

Talk about being on a merry go round that you cannot get off of!

Hmmm. Because YOU don't understand an answer (given to you more than once) you label others as crazy. Got it.

I don't see emojis--only the word appears, and it said crazy. What else is one supposed to think when he see the word posted as a response?

If I see a word as a post, (not emojis) then yes, I take that as their response.

If I see an emoji, then I might think otherwise.

Everything. The media is isn't being bias. It is reporting the crazy shit happening in the USA. What she did was a clear threat.