Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

[meaner gene]

I wonder why more and more vets and active duty military are walking away from the Republican......"brand".

They aren't. They were RINOs to start.

Because they see the new boss (c-in-c) ain't the same as the old boss.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Look RW assholes, you guys have been fed a plate full of bullshit. The majority of the protests have been peaceful. The protests in Portland were under control until the gestapo showed up. You trump supporters are not Americans. You're fascists. And you are here sucking the dick of a dictator because you believe a delusion that tells you America, a place with 500 nations of indigenous people living here when the white man placed his first toe on this soil, is a white country.

The protests in Portland were never under control. Any time you have people being ripped from their cars or denied from crossing the street, human rights are being violated. I have to say my favorite incident was when ANTIFA tried to rip a Black man from his car and then they cried like bitches when he beat the shit out of them. Agree?

I on't recall which riot it was, but I loved when the rioters went to pull a guy from his car and his answer was to shoot the attacker at point blank range.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I wonder why more and more vets and active duty military are walking away from the Republican......"brand".

They aren't. They were RINOs to start.

Because they see the new boss (c-in-c) ain't the same as the old boss.

Thank God!

 

[Muhammed]

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Because that's what's been reported,

Reported by whom? Was it the guy who actually did the beating who reported that? Or was it a clairvoyant mind-reader? Or what?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Look RW assholes, you guys have been fed a plate full of bullshit. The majority of the protests have been peaceful. The protests in Portland were under control until the gestapo showed up. You trump supporters are not Americans. You're fascists. And you are here sucking the dick of a dictator because you believe a delusion that tells you America, a place with 500 nations of indigenous people living here when the white man placed his first toe on this soil, is a white country.

The protests in Portland were never under control. Any time you have people being ripped from their cars or denied from crossing the street, human rights are being violated. I have to say my favorite incident was when ANTIFA tried to rip a Black man from his car and then they cried like bitches when he beat the shit out of them. Agree?

I on't recall which riot it was, but I loved when the rioters went to pull a guy from his car and his answer was to shoot the attacker at point blank range.

Even better. How demented have we become as a society where people believe they have a right to pull people from their cars and their supporters and media view this as “peaceful”?

 

[SavannahMann]

A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

That's merely a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

I challenge you to explain the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that he was beaten for asking a question. Explain the train of logic that you used to come to that conclusion.

I predict that you will run away from that challenge with your tail between your legs, as LWNJ moonbats tend to do when their faulty logic is challenged.

I have answered that a dozen times. Every time a moron finally checks the thread they demand to know how I can say that.

Just as I predicted, you ran away from the challenge with your tail between your legs.

You made an unsupported assertion, and when challenged to explain your reasoning, you came up totally blank.

Nonsense. I told you it had been covered, read the thread you idiot.

Like this link from the page before your demand. One page back. ONE.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another on the exact same page. ONE PAGE BACK.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nice try at deflection. You are continuing to run away from the challenge just as I predicted you would.

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Process of elimination. Prove I am wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

That's merely a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

I challenge you to explain the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that he was beaten for asking a question. Explain the train of logic that you used to come to that conclusion.

I predict that you will run away from that challenge with your tail between your legs, as LWNJ moonbats tend to do when their faulty logic is challenged.

I have answered that a dozen times. Every time a moron finally checks the thread they demand to know how I can say that.

Just as I predicted, you ran away from the challenge with your tail between your legs.

You made an unsupported assertion, and when challenged to explain your reasoning, you came up totally blank.

Nonsense. I told you it had been covered, read the thread you idiot.

Like this link from the page before your demand. One page back. ONE.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another on the exact same page. ONE PAGE BACK.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nice try at deflection. You are continuing to run away from the challenge just as I predicted you would.

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Process of elimination. Prove I am wrong.

Logically, since you made the unsupported assertion, the onus is on you to back up your assertion. When you make an assertion and then demand that others prove you wrong, you committing a logical fallacy known a shifting the burden of proof.

Your logic fails miserably.

 

[SavannahMann]

A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

That's merely a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

I challenge you to explain the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that he was beaten for asking a question. Explain the train of logic that you used to come to that conclusion.

I predict that you will run away from that challenge with your tail between your legs, as LWNJ moonbats tend to do when their faulty logic is challenged.

I have answered that a dozen times. Every time a moron finally checks the thread they demand to know how I can say that.

Just as I predicted, you ran away from the challenge with your tail between your legs.

You made an unsupported assertion, and when challenged to explain your reasoning, you came up totally blank.

Nonsense. I told you it had been covered, read the thread you idiot.

Like this link from the page before your demand. One page back. ONE.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another on the exact same page. ONE PAGE BACK.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nice try at deflection. You are continuing to run away from the challenge just as I predicted you would.

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Process of elimination. Prove I am wrong.

Logically, since you made the unsupported assertion, the onus is on you to back up your assertion. When you make an assertion and then demand that others prove you wrong, you committing a logical fallacy known a shifting the burden of proof.

Your logic fails miserably.

I have eliminated all legal justifications. Now your argument is that my explanation as taken from the news report might not be accurate. If I was to shoot someone in my house I would have to show it was a legally justified action. But apparently your world is one where you have to show that it was illegal. It was.

The legal reasons have been examined and dismissed. That leaves only criminal ones. If my scenario is inaccurate show me. Explain which criminal scenario the Feds used force upon him?

 

[meaner gene]

I wonder why more and more vets and active duty military are walking away from the Republican......"brand".

They aren't. They were RINOs to start.

Because they see the new boss (c-in-c) ain't the same as the old boss.

Thank God!

Read it again, and your head will do a 180, just like Trumps position on masks.

The military knows that Trump sold them out when he let Putin put a bounty on their heads.

 

[meaner gene]

Because that's what's been reported,

Reported by whom? Was it the guy who actually did the beating who reported that? Or was it a clairvoyant mind-reader? Or what?

I'll put he shoe on the other foot, since the bulk of the acknowledged media has given my version, why don't you find some legitimate media (even fox news) that says different.

Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after ... - Fox News
www.foxnews.com › portland-protest-navy-veteran-feder...


5 days ago - Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after beating by federal ... times with a baton before another uses a can of pepper spray on his eyes, ...

 

[Muhammed]

A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

That's merely a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

I challenge you to explain the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that he was beaten for asking a question. Explain the train of logic that you used to come to that conclusion.

I predict that you will run away from that challenge with your tail between your legs, as LWNJ moonbats tend to do when their faulty logic is challenged.

I have answered that a dozen times. Every time a moron finally checks the thread they demand to know how I can say that.

Just as I predicted, you ran away from the challenge with your tail between your legs.

You made an unsupported assertion, and when challenged to explain your reasoning, you came up totally blank.

Nonsense. I told you it had been covered, read the thread you idiot.

Like this link from the page before your demand. One page back. ONE.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another on the exact same page. ONE PAGE BACK.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nice try at deflection. You are continuing to run away from the challenge just as I predicted you would.

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Process of elimination. Prove I am wrong.

Logically, since you made the unsupported assertion, the onus is on you to back up your assertion. When you make an assertion and then demand that others prove you wrong, you committing a logical fallacy known a shifting the burden of proof.

Your logic fails miserably.

I have eliminated all legal justifications. Now your argument is that my explanation as taken from the news report might not be accurate.

Bullshit. I haven't made that argument. Your logic fails again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you do not personally know of any legal justification, logically that does not necessarily mean there wasn't one.

And even if we presume that the cop didn't have a legal justification to use force, it is still a non sequitur fallacy to presume that he beat the guy for asking a question.

You are now stacking logical fallacies on top of each other to defend your original logical fallacy

Your logic triple fails. That makes you look really ******* stupid.

But of course nobody has ever accused LWNJ moonbats of thinking logically.

 

[meaner gene]

Bullshit. I haven't made that argument. Your logic fails again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you do not personally know of any legal justification, logically that does not necessarily mean there wasn't one.

And even if we presume that the cop didn't have a legal justification to use force, it is still a non sequitur fallacy to presume that he beat the guy for asking a question.

Actually your logic fails. There is nothing someone can say to a cop to legitimize his clubbing somebody who did not present himself as a physical threat.

He could have threatened the cops life, and without an overt act towards that, it did not justify a physical assault. And the video shows the Navy guy made no physical action.

 

[Muhammed]

Because that's what's been reported,

Reported by whom? Was it the guy who actually did the beating who reported that? Or was it a clairvoyant mind-reader? Or what?

I'll put he shoe on the other foot, since the bulk of the acknowledged media has given my version, why don't you find some legitimate media (even fox news) that says different.
Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after ... - Fox News
www.foxnews.com › portland-protest-navy-veteran-feder...


5 days ago - Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after beating by federal ... times with a baton before another uses a can of pepper spray on his eyes, ...

Your source does not in any way support the assertion that the man was beaten for asking a question.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

That's merely a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

I challenge you to explain the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that he was beaten for asking a question. Explain the train of logic that you used to come to that conclusion.

I predict that you will run away from that challenge with your tail between your legs, as LWNJ moonbats tend to do when their faulty logic is challenged.

I have answered that a dozen times. Every time a moron finally checks the thread they demand to know how I can say that.

Just as I predicted, you ran away from the challenge with your tail between your legs.

You made an unsupported assertion, and when challenged to explain your reasoning, you came up totally blank.

Nonsense. I told you it had been covered, read the thread you idiot.

Like this link from the page before your demand. One page back. ONE.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another on the exact same page. ONE PAGE BACK.

Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

'yer' needs some critical thinking on YER part to figure out why i spell it that way. Nope, figured it out from the start. You're projecting, pretending your opposition is uneducated when it's obviously you. something apparently you just can't figure out. See above. being stupid doesn't mean...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nice try at deflection. You are continuing to run away from the challenge just as I predicted you would.

None of your previous responses explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that "a retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath."

You have made no argument to back up that unsupported assertion. You just keep running away with your tail between your legs. That's just typical of your ilk when your faulty logic is challenged.

I predict that you will continue to run away from the challenge.

Process of elimination. Prove I am wrong.

How does he prove something does not exist? You can't! Logic 101. Fail.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Bullshit. I haven't made that argument. Your logic fails again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you do not personally know of any legal justification, logically that does not necessarily mean there wasn't one.

And even if we presume that the cop didn't have a legal justification to use force, it is still a non sequitur fallacy to presume that he beat the guy for asking a question.

Actually your logic fails. There is nothing someone can say to a cop to legitimize his clubbing somebody who did not present himself as a physical threat.

He could have threatened the cops life, and without an overt act towards that, it did not justify a physical assault. And the video shows the Navy guy made no physical action.

That was AFTER the video began. What happened preceding that event? You don't know. You are just ASSUMING nothing happened to prompt the officer's response.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The intimidation factor of running around in unmarked vans, with unmarked uniforms, and unidentifiable Federal Agents, seems to be backfiring. As anyone with a brain could have figured out it would.

If they are unidentifiable, how did you identify them as Federal agents?

Please explain that to the USMB forum.

The alarm on my bullshit detector just woke up the neighbors.

Wow. You are dumb. Ok.

Reports: Camouflaged feds grabbing vandals -- and protesters? -- in Portland and carting them off in unmarked vans

How widespread this is, and whether they’re targeting vandals or casting a much broader net at

hotair.com

A couple of the catch and release folks were released from the Federal Courthouse. Unless Vigilantes or local cops have the authority to transport prisoners there.

Hotair.com
??????

 

[SavannahMann]

Bullshit. I haven't made that argument. Your logic fails again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you do not personally know of any legal justification, logically that does not necessarily mean there wasn't one.

And even if we presume that the cop didn't have a legal justification to use force, it is still a non sequitur fallacy to presume that he beat the guy for asking a question.

Actually your logic fails. There is nothing someone can say to a cop to legitimize his clubbing somebody who did not present himself as a physical threat.

He could have threatened the cops life, and without an overt act towards that, it did not justify a physical assault. And the video shows the Navy guy made no physical action.

That was AFTER the video began. What happened preceding that event? You don't know. You are just ASSUMING nothing happened to prompt the officer's response.

Ok. What could possibly justify the use of force.

 

[meaner gene]

Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after ... - Fox News
www.foxnews.com › portland-protest-navy-veteran-feder...
5 days ago - Navy veteran praised as 'Captain Portland' after beating by federal ... times with a baton before another uses a can of pepper spray on his eyes, ...

Your source does not in any way support the assertion that the man was beaten for asking a question.

That's because you didn't bother to read the citation.
You are either too lazy to read it, or too stupid to make that claim, when it's in the citation:


David, a Portland resident who served in the U.S. Navy for more than eight years, said he took the bus downtown to join protesters and looked for federal officers before he “stood in the street in front of them and I started asking them if it was OK to violate their oath of the Constitution.”

“I stood there with my hands down by my sides and they just started whaling on me,” he told KOIN.

Wanna apologize for claiming the citation didn't say that?

 

[meaner gene]

That was AFTER the video began. What happened preceding that event? You don't know. You are just ASSUMING nothing happened to prompt the officer's response.

The officer walked up to the Navy guy. If anything happened before that, that office would have had to approach him, then retreat from him out of camera range, only to approach him again, but this time assault him for what he said or threatened to do, before the office walked away.

I just watched the long view of the video, and it shows the police shoving the Navy veteran who flails his arms to cach his balance, before again standing there motionless.

That's when officers beat him with a baton from the rear, and pepper sprayed him from the front.

S

 

[Muhammed]

Bullshit. I haven't made that argument. Your logic fails again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you do not personally know of any legal justification, logically that does not necessarily mean there wasn't one.

And even if we presume that the cop didn't have a legal justification to use force, it is still a non sequitur fallacy to presume that he beat the guy for asking a question.

There is nothing someone can say to a cop to legitimize his clubbing somebody who did not present himself as a physical threat.

He could have threatened the cops life, and without an overt act towards that, it did not justify a physical assault. And the video shows the Navy guy made no physical action.

Piss off, idiot.

You are attacking an argument that I never presented. That's a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.

Your logic fails.