You can't make this shit up

[pillars]

OMG. omg omg omg omg omg

what CRIME did this person commit that you are now passing judgments on them?

None. Judgement is passed on Repubs for electing him.

Is it normal on this board to have to explain concepts this simple as if you're talking to a small child? If so, damn.

 

[pillars]

Didn't I tell you?

Did I ask?

 

[Carib Gyal]

OMG. omg omg omg omg omg

what CRIME did this person commit that you are now passing judgments on them?

None. Judgement is passed on Repubs for electing him.

Is it normal on this board to have to explain concepts this simple as if you're talking to a small child? If so, damn.

We're trying to explain the difference between election and selection. Is it really that difficult?

 

[S.J.]

straw man
noun
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

It describes this thread and the argument you're trying to sell.

I'm happy to see you've used a dictionary, but what part of this thread is imaginary? The DA who failed to indict the cops involved in the death of Eric Garner is now a Republican candidate for congress. This is factual information.

A strawman is mischaracterizing someone else's argument, such as you did when you asked a question which created an entirely new position for me, one that would be easier for you to attack.

You don't seem very good at this, to be honest.

Amazing. I post the definition and you still get it wrong. Your entire argument is an attempt to paint the D.A. as something he is not (strawman) so you can knock him down. The grand jury declined to indict the officer and you don't like that. Too bad.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Did I ask?

Why are you here, again?

lol

 

[Ravi]

OMG. omg omg omg omg omg

what CRIME did this person commit that you are now passing judgments on them?

None. Judgement is passed on Repubs for electing him.

Is it normal on this board to have to explain concepts this simple as if you're talking to a small child? If so, damn.

We're trying to explain the difference between election and selection. Is it really that difficult?

No. Repubs selected him.

 

[pillars]

Amazing. I post the definition and you still get it wrong. Your entire argument is an attempt to paint the D.A. as something he is not (strawman) so you can knock him down. The grand jury declined to indict the officer and you don't like that. Too bad.

No, dear. What you did in asking the question you did, to attempt to imply that I hold a particular weak position, is a strawman. The thread is not one.

I hear they offer logic classes in local adult education programs these days. Perhaps you should sign up?

 

[squeeze berry]

the lefties are afraid the electorate might decide an election

 

[S.J.]

I thought the grand jury failed to indict

What grand jury fails to indict unless the DA wants them to?

That's ridiculous. If that were the case, there would be no need for a grand jury.

 

[pillars]

Did I ask?

Why are you here, again?

lol

Oh, you thought I was really interested, didn't you? That's so cute.

 

[Carib Gyal]

None. Judgement is passed on Repubs for electing him.
No. Repubs selected him.

lol

 

[Carib Gyal]

Did I ask?

Why are you here, again?

lol

Oh, you thought I was really interested, didn't you? That's so cute.

My husband thinks so which is all that matters to me.

 

[squeeze berry]

lefties are also bitter that juries decide guilt or innocence instead of lynch mobs

 

[pillars]

the lefties are afraid the electorate might decide an election

Not at all. I applaud the decision by republicans in this area to nominate the man who failed to hold NYPD accountable for using an expressly forbidden tactic that resulted in the death of a black man for a minor offense.

It makes it very clear who those Republicans are, and what their party stands for, and I always appreciate people who don't play games about such things.

What's interesting is that none of the republicans in this thread are critical of that decision to nominate this man as a candidate for congress.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought the grand jury failed to indict

What grand jury fails to indict unless the DA wants them to?

All of them...Remember the DA shows the GJ the information THEY want to. Thats where the phrase "A GJ can indict a ham sandwich" comes from.

unless you believe that Ham Sandwiches are guilty of anything but being delicious

 

[pillars]

Did I ask?

Why are you here, again?

lol

Oh, you thought I was really interested, didn't you? That's so cute.

My husband thinks so which is all that matters to me.

Then perhaps you should go into the real world and tell him, instead of me.

 

[S.J.]

Amazing. I post the definition and you still get it wrong. Your entire argument is an attempt to paint the D.A. as something he is not (strawman) so you can knock him down. The grand jury declined to indict the officer and you don't like that. Too bad.

No, dear. What you did in asking the question you did, to attempt to imply that I hold a particular weak position, is a strawman. The thread is not one.

I hear they offer logic classes in local adult education programs these days. Perhaps you should sign up?

I get it, the dictionary is wrong. Great strategy!

 

[pillars]

I get it, the dictionary is wrong. Great strategy!

The dictionary is not wrong, you just seem to lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what it says, and how the term is used.

i.e., it's a personal problem (yours).

 

[Carib Gyal]

Did I ask?

Why are you here, again?

lol

Oh, you thought I was really interested, didn't you? That's so cute.

My husband thinks so which is all that matters to me.

Then perhaps you should go into the real world and tell him, instead of me.

You're the one who asked if I was interested in you. That's about as unreal as the world gets.

 

[pillars]

You're the one who asked if I was interested in you. That's about as unreal as the world gets.

Are you developing some sort of unhealthy fixation on me?