and their military millinery look like whoopie cushions. Starting? Cman, while I could think of a thousand better ways to spend a Saturday in SF/Berkly than to break bread with either of these idiot groups, yesterday wasn't the start of but the continuation of violent shit-stirring that (tbh) has been "lefty-heavy." I mean when you make it a point to ALWAYS show up wearing "indistinguishable from one other" black outfits, hats and face-covering masks, well that pretty much confirms what your intentions are (i.e. "dressing for the occassion" lol). Also (this was cute), note how the one "bloodied victim" picture in that CNN link was of a guy "wearing black" (obviously a passive victim of Trump supporter-instigated violence-lol). Me? I bet a dollar to a stale doughnut that he (just like the other 99% in the video) was just another chump who looked like he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag and who thought he---protected in a crowd---was going to whup some MAGA ass ...oops lol .. just saying. finally, Happy Easter - what's on the menu today (or does the Mrs. handle the vittles on this day?) ; )
3 bone Rib roast, collards w/ smoked ham hocks, jasmine rice, pan gravy...Compliments of the chief cook and bottle washer...me!
They weren't extreme enough in their rhetoric to compare to the rhetoric of the liberal media that the Democratic candidates doubled down on. They were still attempting to be political when that train had left the station. Trump didn't win the nomination in a vacuum absent of voters being bombarded by ridicule and attacks from liberal rhetoric.
You need to stop worrying about Liberals. Look at Washington right now. Not a Liberal in a seat of power anywhere. If you're still worrying about them then something is very wrong and it's not wrong with Liberals it's wrong with you.
Turn on your media of choice and tell me that extremist liberals aren't in power. And then address the argument which is about extremes and liberals assuming their responsibility for the environment in which someone like Trump could become a viable candidate rather than just continuing their righteous, ignorant attacks on anyone of differing ideology. It's not just those dumb conservative rednecks' fault, because pompous, righteous liberals are equally to blame. That has nothing to do with worrying about liberals.
I agree extremist politics are bad. But who are these extreme liberals you're talking about? Name names.
The media took all their cues from youth whining, advocacy and extremely irrational views on race, bigotry, and socialist ideas. With no counter opinions to stimulate reasonable discourse, because opposition was simply being silenced as racists and bigots and ignorant hicks, the Democrats jumped inside the echo chamber, sealed the door shut behind them believed this extreme view on all of these subjects truly was a widespread national opinion to appeal to.
So you are proposing an argument that is dependent on not disputing what I am saying is true but attempting to dispute it based on whether I know the names of reporters and Democrats? If I don't know their names is it your position that what I'm saying isn't true?
So you are arguing the media doesn't perpetrate narratives that impact people's decisions? I don't know if that is naive or just outright stupid.
Yes. You said extremist liberals are in power. In order to decide whether you have a point, I need to know who you're talking about. And if you won't tell me, I'm going to believe that's because you can't.
And if can say if you continue to refuse to dispute my argument it's because you can't. Maybe I'm horrible with names or maybe there are too many to make it reasonable to list. But the fact remains the argument is either valid or not whether I know their names or not so you don't need the names to dispute the argument. Your very question is what is known in logic as a Fallacy Fallacy. You are attempting to dispute my argument on whether I posses the technical knowledge to adequately defend it rather than actually dispute my argument itself. You shouldn't be so smug in committing logical fallacies. Or perhaps you should learn about logical fallacies before you challenge people's positions. But ultimately if you are going to dispute the argument than do so. If you aren't going to dispute it it's fair to assume you can't aren't because you can't and you simply wanted to be contrary to the arguer.
So you are simply pointing out what I'm saying is true? Whether you believe I use it all the time is irrelevant in this instance if it is true. So is it true that the media impacts people's beliefs and is thus relevant in this scenario? If you say yes then you have agreed with what I stated while trying to criticize me for saying it. If you say no you are naive or stupid. Neither of which reflect positively on your rationale. This is why you should not engage in ad hominems in which you attack the arguer rather than the merits of the argument, because you end up looking like a hypocrite, fool or both.
"if you say no you are naive and stupid"... okay then, the King has spoken and I'm the one engaging in ad hominems?
