Ad hominem is Latin for "at/ towards a/ the person".im not sure what an "ad homs" is because im not a fucken nerd
but i think i agree with you
Means playing the man instead of the puck.
Ad hominem is Latin for "at/ towards a/ the person".im not sure what an "ad homs" is because im not a fucken nerd
but i think i agree with you
If you're going to be a shill, that's fine. But at least be honest about it. ?...not to put too fine a point on it, but...
Here's the way I deal with people: ad homs are best when they're objectively funny, but usually better left out altogether.
He and I have had plenty of amicable disagreements, it just takes crushing the Shasta. I could bust out a cold, friendly can if you like ?
Pics?It’s like when you try to defend your sexual obsession with cartoons animals and I call you a skunk fucker instead of addressing the issue at hand.
I've noticed some folks trying to make the defense of the Biden administration encouraging protesting at the Justice's homes by saying "This was one crazy guy" they seek to forget that when one crazy guy shot up a grocery store a month back that was fully and completely the fault of right wings politics.arguing that "parallels" means the same thing as "virtually identical"...
Go Team!!!
by what mechanism were these "thousands of insurrections" going to "block the certification"? LoL
Did the Biden administration really encourage that?I've noticed some folks trying to make the defense of the Biden administration encouraging protesting at the Justice's homes by saying "This was one crazy guy" they seek to forget that when one crazy guy shot up a grocery store a month back that was fully and completely the fault of right wings politics.
It's really neat how that all works.
They didn't exactly condemn it...Did the Biden administration really encourage that?
Encouraging isn't the same thing as condemning.They didn't exactly condemn it...
How many were there for that purpose, as part of a planned overthrow of the FedGov?That's not the mindset the criminals had before or during the attack though, is it. They were there to forcibly prevent Trump's legitimate election loss from being certified.
??
he meant "add homos"im not sure what an "ad homs" is because im not a fucken nerd
Encouraging isn't the same thing as condemning.
I'm asking for fact, because I don't know. Did the Biden administration encourage people to go to specific homes and protest?
With the way people are these days that would probably happen by itself, without the need for encouragement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a "stop the steal" rally?How many were there for that purpose, as part of a planned overthrow of the FedGov?
Psaki Refuses to Condemn Protests outside Justices’ Homes, Accuses GOP of Hypocrisy for Calling Out Intimidation | National Review
Supreme Court security details have been on high alert to potential threats of violence to the justices.www.nationalreview.com
There’s body cam footage showing large crowds of MAGAs yelling shit like “we’re taking back our country!” while assaulting officers with weapons and breaking into the capital. This stuff is easy to find right now.Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a "stop the steal" rally?
And didn't trumps speech center on Mike Pence not approving the electors?
If so, my guess would be most of them were there to "stop the steal"
Edit: it was a "save america" rally
My answer remains the same tho
No changes or ripple effects at all? Cmon bruv. Imagine let's say 30 of den politicians including Pence and Pelosi would have been lynched.They'd have been replaced but the integrity of the system would not have changed.
Many people disagree it seems, and the finding out process is still going on.We also don't have any reason to believe there was an actual plan to kill them or anyone else.
Wut? Unpack that bad boy for us pls.People see to forget that we saw what happens when someone tries to get into somewhere within the capital they aren't wanted.
two reasonably similar events
You could maybe say that if people simply voiced opinions brought up by Trump, but the capitol was stormed and people died/got hurt.This isn't and has never been about the sacredness of democracy, it's always been about Trump
Did the Biden administration really encourage that?
yes.No changes or ripple effects at all? Cmon bruv. Imagine let's say 30 of den politicians including Pence and Pelosi would have been lynched.
Next day replacement and just business as usual or what?
You could maybe say that if people simply voiced opinions brought up by Trump, but the capitol was stormed and people died/got hurt.
the speech didn't focus on Pence, not even sure if he mentioned Pence....but didn't provide any specific instructions other than "we're gonna go protest this injustice".Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a "stop the steal" rally?
And didn't trumps speech center on Mike Pence not approving the electors?
If so, my guess would be most of them were there to "stop the steal"
Edit: it was a "save america" rally
My answer remains the same tho
He mentioned Pence multiple times during his speech. One last ditch effort to pressure Pence was the entire point of that rallythe speech didn't focus on Pence, not even sure if he mentioned Pence....but didn't provide any specific instructions other than "we're gonna go protest this injustice".
but he didn't say anything actionable about Pence, like "go get Pence, that traitor to America"...just called Pence names (AFIAK).He mentioned Pence multiple times during his speech. One last ditch effort to pressure Pence was the entire point of that rally
I got the answer a few posts backPsaki defends ‘peaceful to date’ abortion protests at justices’ homes despite legal concern
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday defended protests outside the suburban homes of conservative Supreme Court justices as “peaceful to date.”nypost.com
can we do one of CNN talking about the BLM riots and put Jan6 footage up?
The Christian Science Monitor agrees.."fiery but mostly peaceful"