USA Today Poll finds 58% of Republicans believe Capitol Riot was organized by Antifa

#452
#452
RockyTop85 said:
Just repeating a conclusion without addressing the reasons why it’s obviously incorrect is the most convincing form of argument.
Click to expand...
Wow for somebody who supposedly works in a field that relies on technical specifics and definitions you sure do like to play fast and loose with them when you need to squirm out from under your own dumbassery.

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#453
#453
NorthDallas40 said:
Wow for somebody who supposedly works in a field that relies on technical specifics and definitions you sure do like to play fast and loose with them when you need to squirm out from under your own dumbassery.

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡
Click to expand...
Ad hominem without addressing the reasons you’re obviously wrong is the second most persuasive form of argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#454
#454
RockyTop85 said:
Ad hominem without addressing the reasons you’re obviously wrong is the second most persuasive form of argument.
Click to expand...
My point is clear and I’m using the correct definition pettifogger. It’s on you to sell your alternative definition of a coup. I’m disinclined to accept your alternative definition.

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡
 
#455
#455
NorthDallas40 said:
My point is clear and I’m using the correct definition pettifogger. It’s on you to sell your alternative definition of a coup. I’m disinclined to accept your alternative definition.

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡
Click to expand...

Declaring victory, demanding that someone convince you, and announcing that you cannot be convinced (all without having addressed the reasons you’re clearly wrong) are the third through fifth most compelling forms of argument.

Lol, I’m not trying to persuade you. Why would anyone be interested in trying to persuade someone who admits they picked someone else’s narrow definition solely because it agrees with your world view after you announced that you don’t intend to change their mind?

I pointed out that the reasons it doesn’t meet their definition are superficial, and you can’t get close to responding with an original thought. Not sure why you think I need to do more than mock you for that, but I disagree.
 
#456
#456
RockyTop85 said:
Declaring victory, demanding that someone convince you, and announcing that you cannot be convinced (all without having addressed the reasons you’re clearly wrong) are the third through fifth most compelling forms of argument.

Lol, I’m not trying to persuade you. Why would anyone be interested in trying to persuade someone who admits they picked someone else’s narrow definition solely because it agrees with your world view after you announced that you don’t intend to change their mind?

I pointed out that the reasons it doesn’t meet their definition are superficial, and you can’t get close to responding with an original thought. Not sure why you think I need to do more than mock you for that, but I disagree.
Click to expand...
LMFAO I used the correct definition that’s been generally accepted until you dumbasses needed to redefine it to fit your inflammatory language narrative. I need no further explanation, you do to try and sell your idiot alternative definition

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#457
#457
RockyTop85 said:
Declaring victory, demanding that someone convince you, and announcing that you cannot be convinced (all without having addressed the reasons you’re clearly wrong) are the third through fifth most compelling forms of argument.

Lol, I’m not trying to persuade you. Why would anyone be interested in trying to persuade someone who admits they picked someone else’s narrow definition solely because it agrees with your world view after you announced that you don’t intend to change their mind?

I pointed out that the reasons it doesn’t meet their definition are superficial, and you can’t get close to responding with an original thought. Not sure why you think I need to do more than mock you for that, but I disagree.
Click to expand...
Oh and you trying to (incorrectly btw) claim somebody else is using some narrow definition to claim a win with some corner case example...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡
 
#458
#458
NorthDallas40 said:
LMFAO I used the correct definition that’s been generally accepted until you dumbasses needed to redefine it to fit your inflammatory language narrative. I need no further explanation, you do to try and sell your idiot alternative definition

Not a coup, pettifogger 🤡🤡
Click to expand...
they admit in their article that their definition is not generally accepted and is more narrow than a number of other definitions proposed by academics. I’m just using the word the way that it is used in common parlance: the sudden, illegal overthrow of government by force. Keep trying.
 
Last edited:
#460
#460
RockyTop85 said:
No. Their stated purpose was to thwart the transfer of power. They were trying to pressure the legislature to overturn the election. The method of selecting a government does need to be preapproved. The Congress or Vice President making that decision is not the preapproved method. That is, definitionally, a coup.

The structure of this (ignoring the available facts and resorting to deflection) seems like more of an admission than a defense.
Click to expand...
Except I dont have a side. Hard to be an admission of guilt if I dont have a dog in the fight.

Protests are always about changing government. We had "coups" all this summer which impacted the working of the state governments, and we saw federal reactions too. And plenty of congressional support of those events.

Your distinction here is you dont like Trump, so this time it's different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#461
#461
LouderVol said:
Except I dont have a side. Hard to be an admission of guilt if I dont have a dog in the fight.

Protests are always about changing government. We had "coups" all this summer which impacted the working of the state governments, and we saw federal reactions too. And plenty of congressional support of those events.

Your distinction here is you dont like Trump, so this time it's different.
Click to expand...
Anybody who didn’t have a side wouldn’t need to be this intentionally daft to pretend to believe such a bad argument.

The distinction between an effort to influence government policy and an effort to change its fundamental process of succession by force is so clear that a perspective that relies upon not recognizing that distinction is self-defeating.
 
#462
#462
RockyTop85 said:
Anybody who didn’t have a side wouldn’t need to be this intentionally daft to pretend to believe such a bad argument.

The distinction between an effort to influence government policy and an effort to change its fundamental process of succession by force is so clear that a perspective that relies upon not recognizing that distinction is self-defeating.
Click to expand...
Isnt that succession a policy matter? The entire argument is about politics. Both sides dont like each other and take that hatred to violent extremes.
 
#465
#465
RockyTop85 said:
No. Their stated purpose was to thwart the transfer of power. They were trying to pressure the legislature to overturn the election. The method of selecting a government does need to be preapproved. The Congress or Vice President making that decision is not the preapproved method. That is, definitionally, a coup.

The structure of this (ignoring the available facts and resorting to deflection) seems like more of an admission than a defense.
Click to expand...

lol @ this coup nonsense.

Had the vote not been able to take place that day (as Constitutionally prescribed), I'm sure they could have held it the next day. You know, extenuating circumstances? It's not like the country would have simple vaporized out of existence had the counting of the vote taken place the next day. I'd bet even the SCOTUS would give them a pass "because, you know, that thing."

Now, what I want to know from you, Biscuit, is if this was a coup or a insurrection or anything of the sort, why wasn't martial law declared? Congress has that power to do so. Seems to me that invoking martial law in the District would have been done if this was as violent and the dissent as widespread as the politicians are letting on.

Or could it just be that the use of such language (coup, armed insurrection, storming, etc) is just making the situation seem far worse than it really was.

Or do you actually believe AOC almost died?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Y9 Vol and NorthDallas40
#467
#467
Grand Vol said:
lol @ this coup nonsense.

Had the vote not been able to take place that day (as Constitutionally prescribed), I'm sure they could have held it the next day. You know, extenuating circumstances? It's not like the country would have simple vaporized out of existence had the counting of the vote taken place the next day. I'd bet even the SCOTUS would give them a pass "because, you know, that thing."

Now, what I want to know from you, Biscuit, is if this was a coup or a insurrection or anything of the sort, why wasn't martial law declared? Congress has that power to do so. Seems to me that invoking martial law in the District would have been done if this was as violent and the dissent as widespread as the politicians are letting on.

Or could it just be that the use of such language (coup, armed insurrection, storming, etc) is just making the situation seem far worse than it really was.

Or do you actually believe AOC almost died?
Click to expand...
Yawn. This isn’t original. I shredded this argument weeks ago. Go back and read it if you like. It wasn’t a good enough argument to merit repeating myself
 
#469
#469
Grand Vol said:
lol @ this coup nonsense.

Had the vote not been able to take place that day (as Constitutionally prescribed), I'm sure they could have held it the next day. You know, extenuating circumstances? It's not like the country would have simple vaporized out of existence had the counting of the vote taken place the next day. I'd bet even the SCOTUS would give them a pass "because, you know, that thing."

Now, what I want to know from you, Biscuit, is if this was a coup or a insurrection or anything of the sort, why wasn't martial law declared? Congress has that power to do so. Seems to me that invoking martial law in the District would have been done if this was as violent and the dissent as widespread as the politicians are letting on.

Or could it just be that the use of such language (coup, armed insurrection, storming, etc) is just making the situation seem far worse than it really was.

Or do you actually believe AOC almost died?
Click to expand...

Unrelated but thought I would share my enjoyment of this nugget with others:

I think it’s hysterical that the argument earlier was “it wasn’t a coup because my definition of coup requires the conspirators to be military” and now the side argument is “why didn’t our most dysfunctional branch of government declare Martial law.”

Maybe you guys should get together and game plan before you go into the ‘burbs and tell people how these miscreants are being misunderstood.
 
#470
#470
RockyTop85 said:
Unrelated but thought I would share my enjoyment of this nugget with others:

I think it’s hysterical that the argument earlier was “it wasn’t a coup because my definition of coup requires the conspirators to be military” and now the side argument is “why didn’t our most dysfunctional branch of government declare Martial law.”

Maybe you guys should get together and game plan before you go into the ‘burbs and tell people how these miscreants are being misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Swing and a miss again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#471
#471
#472
#472
Vol Main said:
You telling Rupert Murdoch's bitches not to be Rupert Murdoch's bitches.
Click to expand...
And you’re talking in an echo chamber because your snow flake ass can’t deal with disagreeing opinions and you’ve got most of us on ignore. Talk about bitches
😂🤡
 
#473
#473
RockyTop85 said:
Unrelated but thought I would share my enjoyment of this nugget with others:

I think it’s hysterical that the argument earlier was “it wasn’t a coup because my definition of coup requires the conspirators to be military” and now the side argument is “why didn’t our most dysfunctional branch of government declare Martial law.”

Maybe you guys should get together and game plan before you go into the ‘burbs and tell people how these miscreants are being misunderstood.
Click to expand...

I dont care if yall decide to call it a coup or not. But it's kind of funny that he ignores the fact that the guy who gets to declare martial law is the same guy that stood the most to benefit from the storming of the Capitol by a bunch of morons who had been convinced they could overturn the election results.
 
#474
#474
clarksvol00 said:
I dont care if yall decide to call it a coup or not. But it's kind of funny that he ignores the fact that the guy who gets to declare martial law is the same guy that stood the most to benefit from the storming of the Capitol by a bunch of morons who had been convinced they could overturn the election results.
Click to expand...
Or the fact that they actually called in the national guard and fortified the building. Staying true to the facts has never been this lot’s strong suit.
 
#475
#475
clarksvol00 said:
I dont care if yall decide to call it a coup or not. But it's kind of funny that he ignores the fact that the guy who gets to declare martial law is the same guy that stood the most to benefit from the storming of the Capitol by a bunch of morons who had been convinced they could overturn the election results.
Click to expand...
Congress and POTUS can both declare martial law. Look it up. If this was a real coup attempt why wasn’t martial law declared?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top