I was just pointing out that your claim that she wanted to retaliate without figuring out who to retaliate against was directly contradicted by the text of her statement.
I made no other comment, so I'm not sure why you're swearing at me.
You seem very passionate, and I don't disagree with you about the problem with talking about retaliation - it certainly is a silly and childish response to the perception of danger. But my comment was an effort to encourage you to not let your passion run ahead of the facts. There's enough wrong with what she did say that there's no need to claim she said something else.
I wasn't swearing at you. I'm just frustrated at the continued acceptance of the republican frames all the way down to our debates. Even our candidates seem to take the ridiculous security framings seriously. It's not you. It's me.
