|
"or use violence to solve issues"
ROFL
NICE BAIT
Wat you get 4 lunch? I got sainsburys 3 quid meal deal southern fried chicken baguette mccoys flame grilled & diet coke |
|
|
libs makes up 99% of the whiners right now
they lost badly, after all |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
"Republicans are way more whiney."
Please explain all the snowflakes that were smashing storefronts in Washington D.C. during the inauguration, please explain all the protest outside of Trump-related properties and please explain how all these liberals are somehow not creating mass chaos in the US.
Just stop.
just call me admin |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
The liberals are fueling the Black Lives Matter issues, liberals are attempting to take America into a socialist direction of government. If you learned anything in history class, you should have at least realized that in everything single country that had socialism, it evolved in to destructive communism.
Stop with your poorly made points.
just call me admin |
|
|
republicans pledged to block hillary's supreme court pick
so much for the lame duck excuse ;/
|
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
Democrats are attempting to block Trump's nominee, that he chose tonight, as we speak.
just call me admin |
|
|
|
Republicans these days, by and large, can't handle criticism of Mr. Trump and ignore it completely. You'd think that a party that supposedly values "logic" and "facts" would make an honest effort to embrace them and their implications. |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
If Republicans are so terrible at upholding 'logic' and 'facts', explain the LIBERAL rioters smashing (ironically liberal companies) storefronts in Washington D.C. during the inauguration.
just call me admin |
|
|
Libs are notorious for ignoring facts: namely the riots that are destroying communities as we speak. But who cares about that right? |
|
|
You do realize that's a non-sequitur logical fallacy, right sir? This means that the latter part of your claim has nothing to do with the first.
The rioting of anarcho-communists in DC has no relation to the logical faculties of the Republican party.
Strike 1 for the Republican Party. |
|
|
Trump only chose a supreme court pick to avoid the talk about his atrocities and poorly executed ban.
Oh by the way if you are complaining about someone choosing g by their opinion maybe you should check out trumps picks for the EPA Housing Education and pretty much any other position.
Not to mention Breitbart owner becoming a policy maker |
|
|
Didn't I already make a statement about "rioters" and people who smashed store fronts?
They are disenfranchised people who claim to be liberals. But are not an actual association at all to the real group.
Please explain to me the youtube video i previously linked? where I would CERTAINLY be banned if I talked thoroughly about it. |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
False, that's awesome that you can name a fallacy with the help of Google. However, if you've read any reliable sources, those rioters are supporting the leftist agenda. Those groups that set out to create chaos specifically named that they were doing it in an attempt to destabilize the inauguration.
I don't know about you, but it does sound like a bunch of sore losers. Personally, I didn't support either candidate. However, I completely hate the liberal reactions to Trump winning.
Go ahead and keep categorizing people into the Republican party that disagree with the leftist agenda.
just call me admin |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
"Poorly executed ban"
Not sure if you can distinguish the difference between the denotation and the connotation of the word 'ban', but it means to "Officially or legally prohibit". I read the entire executive order, Trump placed a temporary hold on immigration to the US from 7 SPECIFIC countries that Obama previously named to be unstable. Trump's reasoning for placing this "ban" as you call it, was to simply improve the vetting or background checking process due to the dangers that the unstable countries potentially possess.
Also, I'm not complaining about opinions on choosing. Someone pointed out that the Republicans vowed to block the nomination for a judge by Hillary, so I returned with the undeniable fact that democrats (as we speak) are trying to block or even filibuster Trump's nomination.
just call me admin |
|
|
Number two, a red herring this time. You're attempting to change the conversation from the logical faculties on the Republican party to a conversation about the anarcho-communists in Washington.
Again, the fact they rioted and destroyed shops (I agree with you on the facts) has NOTHING to do with the claim that "THE REPUBLICANS ARE LOGICAL" (caps for emphasis on the claim being discussed).
Strike 2 for the Republican Party. |
|
|
ie, you can both be illogical. The rioting of the "left", as you call them, does not necessarily mean that the Republicans are logical and fact-oriented. This isn't a dichotomy. |
|
|
Straw man alert
Straw man alert |
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
Oh don't worry trump will devastate the GOP worse than GBush did with his presidency at the rate things are going.
The DNC may be in a pretty shifty state thanks to Schultz but she's out of the picture now, and it's only up from here.
|
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
Honestly, it's quite pathetic that your only resource of combating solid arguments is attempting to point out common fallacies in the English language. I can play this game too if you'd like.
You used a hasty generalization about an entire group of people, specifically the Republicans, about how they do not support their party goals of 'logic' and 'facts'. One of which isn't even a goal of the party, factual arguments were constantly made in desperate attempts to combat Mr. Trump's aggressive comments. You can re-watched the debates yourself as to where Hillary Clinton made repetitive comments about 'fact-checking' and making sure that everything was solid. Clearly anyone with no solid return on an argument has to resource to claim another's information is false.
The definition of an argument is to prove one's viewpoint through visual, textual or #### means. Argument are heavily biased in each of the opponents favor. The idea that you resorted to pointing out typical fallacies in the common, daily English language just makes you a pathetic person.
Also, your 'anarcho-communists' are products of the beloved Democrat party. Such is the same for the Republicans to the tea-party. So if Democrats categorize tea-party underneath the Republican agenda, I'd say it's safe to argument that anarcho-communists are Democrats. If you want to contest that, you contest your own party's claims.
Just stop with these foolish ploys, real intellectuals see it as a coward's move to do what you're doing.
just call me admin |
|
|
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
If the Democrats are so correct in their statements and agendas, please explain to me all the issues created UNDER A DEMOCRATIC PARTY with: Black Lives Matter, police officers and lunatic speeches given at marches making obscene comments about a President-elect.
Last I recall, when Obama got elected and re-elected, there was not a single major protest that occurred such as ones underneath Trump.
just call me admin |
|
Adm1nMeJoin Date: 2010-09-08
Post Count: 1492 |
Apologies for all the mistakes in grammar, I'm doing this all off of my phone.
just call me admin |
|
|
Ah, good! You're starting to think, but I do have to respond to what you have said.
1. I never claimed to be logical. In fact, you're the only one that insisted they were logical in our entire discussion. I simply highlighted your use of logical fallacies to demonstrate that you, as a conservative, were using fallacious logic.
2. I made no claims about the anarcho-communists and their status (or lack thereof) in the Democratic party.
3. I'm not a democrat, I'm an independent.
Now, let me explain this again. You made the claim that the conservatives (and yourself) were logical individuals. I highlighted your use of blatant logical fallacies to DEMONSTRATE that this was not the case, that you weren't using logic to reach your conclusions.
|
|