Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

a reply to: Liquesence

You'd think he'd get a clue given there's some pretty vocal ATS Trump supporters that have been in here disagreeing with his fallacious arguments, but again... reading comprehension doesn't appear to be his strong point, and the only logic he appears to understand is circular.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

You’re just angry because I made fun of your #ty little YouTube channel .

I rarely agree with Grambler (except in this thread)) but I might actually watch his YT channel just to give him a view. On mute, of course, so he still gets to speak, but so I don't have to hear it.

I wouldnt. Its all of my terrible arguments without any of the fun spelling errors.

a reply to: Grambler

I have no right to have people acknowledge my expressions, regardless if I break the law or not.

That’s not what I asked.

“So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion.

Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged “.


I will try to clarify

Is it your position that if somebody breaks a law ( any law ) their opinion/ position/stance/expression doesn’t matter .

For instance was Cesar Chavez just another uppity lettuce picker .

Or

Were the protesters at wounded knee just a bunch of butthurt Indians ?


^^^ I emphasized “any law “ to prevent the normal evasive tactic of rationalizing one law against the other .

a reply to: redmage

Circular argument, fallacy , Projection. Lady you’re a textbook example of trolling 101 for beginners .

a reply to: redmage

Already been done, and naturally you missed it just like everything else. LOL

Nope you just dance around the question .


Case in point ....

There's no excuse for violence, or destruction of others' property from either side.

Nope didn’t see you single out the left anywhere in that comment .


“ straw man argument “ I can add that to your list of trolling for dummies. You guys don’t even realize you aren’t very good at this . If I had you on a different site you wouldn’t last a half hour .

Want to try me ?

Of course you think immigrant children’s innocence is disposable .

If not you would be able to answer yes to this question .....

Was trumps policy of gene testing immigrant children before release to help insure they aren’t victims of slave or sex trafficking a good thing yes or no ?


You don’t care

a reply to: Fallingdown

Sorry, lil' missy, but the only one who appears to possibly be trolling here is you... unless you actually are as dishonest and dense as you appear to be in this thread. Your non-stop logical fallacies are running transparent, and continually reveal the weakness of your arguments.

a reply to: Liquesence

“ Move the goalpost” 🤦‍♂️

I’ve held my same position since page 1 . Lol

You people are hilarious. I’ve seen this 1000 times a group is on the losing end of an argument. So they keep patting each other‘s back‘s .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Were the protesters at wounded knee just a bunch of butthurt Indians ?

They were massacred by the government.

WTF does that have any relevance to Hoyt?

None.

a reply to: redmage

Then what are you doing here ? After 15 pages do you guys think you’re going to change my mind ?

I already know none of you were going to be honest .

You’re all here for a reason it’s called trolling .

And you guys are all behaving like a mob of sheep.

There’s safety in numbers.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I’ve held my same position since page 1

You don't know what position you're holding at any given time, they way you've flopped around on rights trying to justify Hoyt's destruction of property because "owning the lefties" iz cool and partiotic.

Oh, yeah, that fixes everything.

a reply to: Liquesence

I emphasized “any law “ to prevent the normal evasive tactic of rationalizing one law against the other .

Called it

a reply to: Fallingdown

Then what are you doing here ? After 15 pages do you guys think you’re going to change my mind ?

Nope. Just continuously pointing out how wrong you are, which most everyone knows.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Nope you just dance around the question .

Nah, you just can't comprehend simple and repeated answers.

Nope didn’t see you single out the left anywhere in that comment .

The left is a side that was condemned. Some of us are capable of seeing the bigger picture. Sorry, bub, but this isn't a "the left", or a "the right" thing. There are extremists on both sides, and if one fails to acknowledge that fact, then they are a part of the problem. The only goal in trying to focus or shift blame to one side is in misguided attempts to justify the other side's wrongdoings. Hoyt's actions are just as unjustified as someone snatching a MAGA cap.

Unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite who will condemn illegal activity from one side, but not the other.

Of course you think immigrant children’s innocence is disposable .

That's a lie, and you will find no quote where I said that at all.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Then what are you doing here ? After 15 pages do you guys think you’re going to change my mind ?

I already know none of you were going to be honest .

You’re all here for a reason it’s called trolling .

And you guys are all behaving like a mob of sheep.

There’s safety in numbers.

They have come here, to watch an OP troll his own thread..it's fascinating! Like a train wreck..hard to look away.

You people are hilarious. I’ve seen this 1000 times a group is on the losing end of an argument. So they keep patting each other‘s back‘s

You poor man! maybe you were just wrong all those times too!

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Liquesence

I emphasized “any law “ to prevent the normal evasive tactic of rationalizing one law against the other .

Called it

I emphasized “any law “ to prevent the normal evasive tactic of rationalizing one law against the other .

That is where you're wrong, again.

An unjust law is quite different from a butthurt jerkoff who is triggered and destroys private property to own the lefties and cause a scene.

That you can't see the difference is the problem.

a reply to: Liquesence

Wrong again Page 1

I viewed it as an expression you guys spent the next 20 pages telling me it’s not an expression .

Then claimed I move the goalpost .

You guys know I’m right or you wouldn’t even be here .

I guess I hurt your pride ?

a reply to: Liquesence

Oh so your position is you can break some laws but not others.

If you had to make exceptions to your position you don’t have a position you have a sermon .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I dont know how I can be any clearer.

No, Cesar chavez had no right to have his opinion matter. Same with wounded knee protestors. Same with mother theresa, MLK, ronald reagan, and every other single person in history. Breaking the law has nothing to do with it.

In the case of the OP, his justification for why he destroyed someone personal property doesnt matter to me any more than listening to the enron guys tell me why they stole all those peoples money. They dont have a first amendment right for me to think their opinion matters.

It is up to each and every individual whose opinion they listen to and value; the first amendment does not guarantee anyone to have their opinions/statements to be heard or matter

All of us chose who to listen to, whose opinion matters etc, and a litanty of issues. You yourself has said you found some opinions you read on this thread to be "irrelevant", which is basically saying they dont matter. Thats fine, you arent violating any rights of anyone.

a reply to: Fallingdown

You guys know I’m right or you wouldn’t even be here .

You know you're wrong or you wouldn't be here trying to keep making yourself think you're right when you've been proved wrong time and again by multiple people.

I viewed it as an expression you guys spent the next 20 pages telling me it’s not an expression .

It's not constitutionally protected. It's destruction of property, which is not protected speech or protection. And why it's wrong.

Again this is a stupid thread.

Because a guy commits a crime you approve of, it's not a crime? If a dude slashed your personal property, or rented property and you would be liable for if it were damaged, would you seriously care WHY he did it? Your property or rented or leased property.. attacked by someone.. I'm assuming you would not be OK with it no matter what the circumstances.

I swear, Trump has his sheep drinking so deeply in his kool-aid, they can't discern right from wrong.

If you take out all political / personal bias.. just take it from a person attacking another person's property, and any sane person would not be OK with it. If OP read a complaint where there was no context other than person A. had a display and person B. destroyed it because he didn't like it, he would not be OK with it. Unless of course, he doesn't care for the Constitution? I guess in these Trump days, the Constitution often goes to the wayside.