DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 when all else fails... It's not an ad hominem attack. It's an observation. You know it's a metaphor, you're purposely and dishonestly taking it literally for your own partisan hackery, as evidenced by the fact that if you truly took it literally, it makes no sense whatsoever. Ergo, by empirical observation: you're being a putz,and need to grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) It's not an ad hominem attack. It's an observation. You know it's a metaphor, you're purposely and dishonestly taking it literally for your own partisan hackery, as evidenced by the fact that if you truly took it literally, it makes no sense whatsoever. Ergo, by empirical observation: you're being a putz,and need to grow up. i'm thinking that's a metaphor. perhaps you can get LA to make a ruling for you. Edited January 5, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) i'm thinking that's a metaphor. No, I actually think you're a penis, but always write it in Yiddish. Edited January 5, 2016 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 No, I actually think you're a penis, but always write it in Yiddish. nah, not ad hominem at all…definitely not. nope. uh uh. never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 nah, not ad hominem at all…definitely not. nope. uh uh. never. You're an idiot. THAT'S an ad hominem argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) You're an idiot. THAT'S an ad hominem argument. i'm sure there are many who are envious of your superior debate skills as evidenced in this thread. awesome. definitely not idiotic. LA, can we have a ruling? Edited January 5, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 i'm sure there are many who are envious of your superior debate skills as evidenced in this thread. awesome. definitely not idiotic. LA, can we have a ruling? Did you just ignore the parts where I actually demonstrate your position is bull ****? That's your strategy? Prove you're not a putz by doubling down on being a putz? Good luck with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) That's your strategy? Prove you're not a putz by doubling down on being a putz? Good luck with that... When all else fails Edited January 5, 2016 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 By that argument, it's still metaphorical. Because if you want to be that literal, TED CRUZ IS NOT IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CAN'T GIVE THAT ORDER. Now stop being a putz, and grow up. Obfuscation on steroids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 By that argument, it's still metaphorical. Because if you want to be that literal, TED CRUZ IS NOT IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CAN'T GIVE THAT ORDER. Now stop being a putz, and grow up. I was thinking about this part of the argument this am. by this reasoning, if an army had another army surrounded and outgunned and demanded that they stand down, they wouldn't literally be demanding stand down since it doesn't follow the chain of command. one can envision many other law enforcement or military examples that also don't involve it. this is one of the weakest arguments I've seen from you in some time and that is really saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I was thinking about this part of the argument this am. by this reasoning, if an army had another army surrounded and outgunned and demanded that they stand down, they wouldn't literally be demanding stand down since it doesn't follow the chain of command. one can envision many other law enforcement or military examples that also don't involve it. this is one of the weakest arguments I've seen from you in some time and that is really saying something. If you're going to continue an argument on the literal use of words, let's try using the same ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 If you're going to continue an argument on the literal use of words, let's try using the same ones. then substitute requesting for demanding. so what? doesn't change the argument. would you like to alo know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. it might somehow relate in your or tom's mind re the discussion or at the very least add to the obfuscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) When the Bundys seized an unmanned, remote federal outpost in rural Oregon to protest policies by the Bureau of Land Management and the re-imprisonment of two ranchers, the media demanded answers from Republican presidential candidates. Do they endorse the action of Ammon Bundy, his family and friends, in armed protest? Curiously, few reporters seem interested in determining whether Hillary Clinton endorses traffic blockages and other illegal demonstrations staged by Black Lives Matters organizers, but at least Ted Cruz was willing to answer the question. And the answer is … hell, no: Cruz’ archrival for the nomination concurs. In a separate interview, Marco Rubio said BLM policies have to be changed, but not by being “lawless”: It’s a silly question and a product of the media’s insistence on making Republicans answer for fringe elements in a way that rarely gets applied to Democrats. It’s making much more of this supposed standoff than it really is. A better answer to this would be to make note of how small and inconsequential the situation is at the moment, and how the media hysteria over this protest is actually feeding into the Bundys’ hype about it. perhaps we can get Hillary Clinton on the record over the other #BLM blocking holiday traffic in Minneapolis at the airport and in the Mall of America. After all, she has met with the movement’s leadership on occasion in order to further her presidential ambitions, something neither Cruz nor Rubio have done with the Bundys. Shouldn’t we get an answer from her about their tactics now? Or is the sauce only good for the gander ? Perhaps someone at the White House needs to do a wee bit more research on this: Spokesman Josh Earnest’s comments come even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has taken charge of the response to the incident along with state and local agencies. “Ul timately this is a local law enforcement matter and the FBI is monitoring the situation and offering support to local law enforcement officials,” Earnest said. The spokesman added that President Obama is “aware” of the situation and said there are no federal employees at risk. Actually, it’s not a local law enforcement issue, although I’d bet the FBI and White House wish it was. The larger reservation on which the federal facility sits is the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, created by a Teddy Roosevelt executive order in 1908. If the Bundy group is breaking the law on federal property, the jurisdiction properly belongs to federal law enforcement, not local police. Or has the Obama administration ceded the facility to the state of Oregon http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/04/cruz-oregon-militia-should-stand-down-peaceably/ Edited January 5, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) When the Bundys seized an unmanned, remote federal outpost in rural Oregon to protest policies by the Bureau of Land Management and the re-imprisonment of two ranchers, the media demanded answers from Republican presidential candidates. Do they endorse the action of Ammon Bundy, his family and friends, in armed protest? Curiously, few reporters seem interested in determining whether Hillary Clinton endorses traffic blockages and other illegal demonstrations staged by Black Lives Matters organizers, but at least Ted Cruz was willing to answer the question. And the answer is … hell, no: Cruz’ archrival for the nomination concurs. In a separate interview, Marco Rubio said BLM policies have to be changed, but not by being “lawless”: It’s a silly question and a product of the media’s insistence on making Republicans answer for fringe elements in a way that rarely gets applied to Democrats. It’s making much more of this supposed standoff than it really is. A better answer to this would be to make note of how small and inconsequential the situation is at the moment, and how the media hysteria over this protest is actually feeding into the Bundys’ hype about it. perhaps we can get Hillary Clinton on the record over the other #BLM blocking holiday traffic in Minneapolis at the airport and in the Mall of America. After all, she has met with the movement’s leadership on occasion in order to further her presidential ambitions, something neither Cruz nor Rubio have done with the Bundys. Shouldn’t we get an answer from her about their tactics now? Or is the sauce only good for the gander ? Perhaps someone at the White House needs to do a wee bit more research on this: Actually, it’s not a local law enforcement issue, although I’d bet the FBI and White House wish it was. The larger reservation on which the federal facility sits is the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, created by a Teddy Roosevelt executive order in 1908. If the Bundy group is breaking the law on federal property, the jurisdiction properly belongs to federal law enforcement, not local police. Spokesman Josh Earnest’s comments come even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has taken charge of the response to the incident along with state and local agencies. “Ultimately this is a local law enforcement matter and the FBI is monitoring the situation and offering support to local law enforcement officials,” Earnest said. The spokesman added that President Obama is “aware” of the situation and said there are no federal employees at risk. Or has the Obama administration ceded the facility to the state of Oregon http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/04/cruz-oregon-militia-should-stand-down-peaceably/ due to your insistence on clouding the actual issue with unrelated events and groups, lets look at a very different take on how those groups/events might contrast: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/01/oregon-standoff-clear-case-white-privilege-160105053136857.html The largest protests took place in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, and more recently, Chicago and Detroit. Early Black Lives Matter protests were met with militarised police and their familiar fixings - tanks, tear gas, and indiscriminate mass arrests. Indeed, the images of police aggression against the protesters served as a lurid metaphor for the violent law enforcement inflicted on Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and the string of victims that gave rise to the protests. The Bundy-led militia toted heavy weaponry, promised to respond with force if needed, and even enlisted the mastermind behind the wave of anti-Muslim protests that swept through the United States in 2015... Black Lives Matters protesters were unarmed, spearheaded largely by students and young adults, and organised in public forums. Most importantly, they seized no government property nor adversely occupied any federal buildings. Their exercise of free speech, however, was met with repeated opposition, and more often than not, violent suppression. Juxtapose this with recent events in Oregon. The Bundy-led militia toted heavy weaponry, promised to respond with force if needed, and even enlisted the mastermind behind the wave of anti-Muslim protests that swept through the United States in 2015, John Ritzheimer. No police were on site. Enabling the militia to march into town, meddle in a purely local matter, and accomplish their mission. Instead of being met with police opposition, the white militiamen were extended full-scale police cooperation. A response that would never be extended to black protesters in the US, who convene in public streets and spaces brandishing no weaponry but only their blackness, which for law enforcement, appears to be far more threatening than the military-fatigued, rifled, "kill-or-be-killed" menace posed by the Oregon militants. Edited January 5, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 How much damage have the Bundy's caused in the previous standoff and the current one? Is your argument that the officials should not have sent the police out during the Ferguson & Baltimore protests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 How much damage have the Bundy's caused in the previous standoff and the current one? Is your argument that the officials should not have sent the police out during the Ferguson & Baltimore protests? it's not my argument. it's a writer from al Jazeera. it's well written and easily understood. just presenting a very different perspective. I think there's plenty to discuss while concentrating solely on the events in Oregon without bringing up unrelated events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 it's not my argument. it's a writer from al Jazeera. it's well written and easily understood. just presenting a very different perspective. I think there's plenty to discuss while concentrating solely on the events in Oregon without bringing up unrelated events. Then why are you bringing it up, especially when the context of this discussion isn't the authorities' response but the hypocrisy of the news coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Then why are you bringing it up, especially when the context of this discussion isn't the authorities' response but the hypocrisy of the news coverage? because so many posts here have concentrated on these other events and a different perspective was needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 because so many posts here have concentrated on these other events and a different perspective was needed. Those posts were brought up in the context of media hypocrisy. But carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Those posts were brought up in the context of media hypocrisy. But carry on. I will but I don't need your permission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts