Republican Pac Uses Senate Shooting for political gain commercial in Georgia Run

[jillian]

It's one thing to claim the ad is fallacious and it's another thing to prove it.

So let's see your explanation what the ad is wrong about. Be specific.

I don't know what can be more specific than "Composition Fallacy". If you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" while engaging in it, then you have nothing but self-delusion.


--- and just after this post, you went right back to it:

Like it or not.... all political parties own the actions of the extremists in their midst in some way.

NO THEY DO NOT. I can't tell if you're watching too many episodes of Star Trek TNG and fantasizing over the Borg but life simply does not work that way. Individuals are responsible for individual actions, not some collective you decide to dishonestly make up in your head so you can score "points'.

The list of "the shooter on the baseball field is comprised of one name. ONE. That would be James Hodgkinson. Jon Osoff is not on that list. Bernie Sanders is not on that list. Barack O'bama, Nancy Pelosi, Bo Belinsky, Karl Marx, Genghis Khan --- **NONE** of them are in any way involved. Stop insulting everybody's intelligence with this naked bullshit.

Some, more than others. . . As determined by how much the leaders AND THE ACTIVISTS of that party decide to publically condemn the actions of those kooks.

Again, fucking self-absorbed dishonest bullshit. That's just you declaring by fiat what commentary you're going to cherrypick and which you're going to ignore. No one who was not involved in the shooting --- a list which includes every human on earth except one --- "owes" anybody anything. That''s as fallacious as it gets.

wow you really don't like when things are pointed your way eh? fking thirteen months of that nonsense from the left and one goofball on a baseball diamond has your ears collapsing.

Sumbodys kinda triggered.... huh.

The political ad linked to in the op is an example of speech that is protected by our 1st Amendment.

True or false?

That would be both "true" and "irrelevant" since I never claimed it wasn't.

Looks like you're just incapable of posting anything without building it on a logical fallacy. But I kinda already noted that.

How relevant are you?

more relevant that extremist pond scum like you. *shrug*

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't know what can be more specific than "Composition Fallacy". If you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" while engaging in it, then you have nothing but self-delusion.


--- and just after this post, you went right back to it:

NO THEY DO NOT. I can't tell if you're watching too many episodes of Star Trek TNG and fantasizing over the Borg but life simply does not work that way. Individuals are responsible for individual actions, not some collective you decide to dishonestly make up in your head so you can score "points'.

The list of "the shooter on the baseball field is comprised of one name. ONE. That would be James Hodgkinson. Jon Osoff is not on that list. Bernie Sanders is not on that list. Barack O'bama, Nancy Pelosi, Bo Belinsky, Karl Marx, Genghis Khan --- **NONE** of them are in any way involved. Stop insulting everybody's intelligence with this naked bullshit.


Again, fucking self-absorbed dishonest bullshit. That's just you declaring by fiat what commentary you're going to cherrypick and which you're going to ignore. No one who was not involved in the shooting --- a list which includes every human on earth except one --- "owes" anybody anything. That''s as fallacious as it gets.

wow you really don't like when things are pointed your way eh? fking thirteen months of that nonsense from the left and one goofball on a baseball diamond has your ears collapsing.

Sumbodys kinda triggered.... huh.

The political ad linked to in the op is an example of speech that is protected by our 1st Amendment.

True or false?

That would be both "true" and "irrelevant" since I never claimed it wasn't.

Looks like you're just incapable of posting anything without building it on a logical fallacy. But I kinda already noted that.

How relevant are you?

42.

Stoopid question gets stoopid answer.

Yoar so potatoe!

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh snap. . . .

Looks like the ad worked.

Imagine that.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know what can be more specific than "Composition Fallacy". If you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" while engaging in it, then you have nothing but self-delusion.


--- and just after this post, you went right back to it:

NO THEY DO NOT. I can't tell if you're watching too many episodes of Star Trek TNG and fantasizing over the Borg but life simply does not work that way. Individuals are responsible for individual actions, not some collective you decide to dishonestly make up in your head so you can score "points'.

The list of "the shooter on the baseball field is comprised of one name. ONE. That would be James Hodgkinson. Jon Osoff is not on that list. Bernie Sanders is not on that list. Barack O'bama, Nancy Pelosi, Bo Belinsky, Karl Marx, Genghis Khan --- **NONE** of them are in any way involved. Stop insulting everybody's intelligence with this naked bullshit.


Again, fucking self-absorbed dishonest bullshit. That's just you declaring by fiat what commentary you're going to cherrypick and which you're going to ignore. No one who was not involved in the shooting --- a list which includes every human on earth except one --- "owes" anybody anything. That''s as fallacious as it gets.

wow you really don't like when things are pointed your way eh? fking thirteen months of that nonsense from the left and one goofball on a baseball diamond has your ears collapsing.

Sumbodys kinda triggered.... huh.

The political ad linked to in the op is an example of speech that is protected by our 1st Amendment.

True or false?

That would be both "true" and "irrelevant" since I never claimed it wasn't.

Looks like you're just incapable of posting anything without building it on a logical fallacy. But I kinda already noted that.

How relevant are you?

42.

Stoopid question gets stoopid answer.

Did you just call the meaning of life and everything a stoopid question...

 

[Pogo]

wow you really don't like when things are pointed your way eh? fking thirteen months of that nonsense from the left and one goofball on a baseball diamond has your ears collapsing.

Sumbodys kinda triggered.... huh.

The political ad linked to in the op is an example of speech that is protected by our 1st Amendment.

True or false?

That would be both "true" and "irrelevant" since I never claimed it wasn't.

Looks like you're just incapable of posting anything without building it on a logical fallacy. But I kinda already noted that.

How relevant are you?

42.

Stoopid question gets stoopid answer.

Did you just call the meaning of life and everything a stoopid question...

Nope, I called the question of Chews Life a stoopid question.