Fallacious Reasoning and ANTIFA, by Bruce Tarleton
“Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set.”
If I were to say that, everyone would rightfully label it as absurd. In fallacious reasoning, this is known as Questionable Cause. It is sometimes called butterfly logic, ignoring a common cause, neglecting a common cause, confusing correlation and causation, confusing cause and effect, false cause, third cause, or third-cause fallacy. In simple terms, it means one thing is responsible or a result of another, simply because they are associated.
This type of fallacious reasoning has been used against conservatives lately with their opposition to the terrorist group Antifa. When Antifa confronted the White Supremacists in Charlottesville last month, violence broke out. One person was killed and many others injured. Of course, there was immediate condemnation of the White Supremacists (I’ll be referring to them as KKK, since I’m lazy and don’t feel like writing White Supremacists all the time). But the problem is conservatives also condemn Antifa. Even the President said there was blame on both sides. Well. This doesn’t sit well with liberals. Antifa, which is short for Anti-Fascist, was in fact on the opposite side of Fascists: The KKK. So in the eyes of the liberals, they were the Great Crusaders, fighting for justice and liberty for all, amen.
The fallacious reasoning in this case works like this: If you oppose and condemn Antifa, then you must support the KKK. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Antifa is a violent group. Their entire history in the US is based on violent responses to protests, rallies, and marches by groups that they don’t like, or have messages they don’t agree with.
Most conservatives I know would agree with me when I say violence against violence is never the answer. The only time I support a violent response is in self-defense, and then only that force necessary to stop the threat.
But to liberals, the violence of Antifa is acceptable, because, well, they were fighting fascists. And if you oppose that, then you are in support of fascism, and the fascist racist groups.
Liberals tend to forget the violence that Antifa has been known for. Here is a chronological list of their violent behavior just this year.
January 20
On Inauguration Day, Antifa members rioted in downtown D.C., leading to the arrest of at least 217 people, according to CNN .
… black-clad "antifascist" protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk.
Six police officers were injured in the riots.
CNN reports that protests in New York, Portland, and Seattle also turned violent:
In New York, nine people were arrested for disorderly conduct, according to the New York Police Department. Authorities said five people were arrested at a protest in Dallas, six in Chicago.
In Portland, Oregon, protesters were armed with clubs, sticks and throwing unknown liquid at officers, according to the Portland Police Department. Six people were arrested in Portland Friday, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson tells CNN.
In Seattle, people threw bricks and other items at officers during a demonstration on the the University of Washington campus, city police said.
In D.C., a limousine was vandalized and set on fire. The chauffeur limo belonged to Muslim immigrant, Muhammad Ashraf :
February 1
Prior to a planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley, Antifa members and a coalition of “Black Bloc” rioters devastated the campus, causing approximately $100,000 in damages, according to CNN .
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held. At least six people were injured.
… The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO
March 4
In Berkeley, California, a pro-Trump march was violently disrupted by Antifa rioters. According to The Washington Post :
A planned “March 4 Trump” demonstration held at the city’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park — several blocks from the University of California at Berkeley campus — escalated after fights broke out between those who had shown up for the event and counter-protesters. …
Other items, such as bricks and baseball bats, were confiscated as well.
The Los Angeles Times writes: “Berkeley Police Officer Byron White said 10 arrests were made: one for resisting arrest, four for assault with a deadly weapon, including a dagger, and five for battery. About seven medical evaluations were made on the scene. None of the injured wanted to be taken to the hospital.”
April 15
A Pro-Trump demonstration in Berkeley, California, was disrupted when black-clad protesters showed up.
According to CBS News :
Police in Berkeley, California, say 13 people have been arrested and knives and makeshift weapons confiscated after violence erupted at a park where factions that support and oppose President Trump gathered for Tax Day rallies.
...Officials say officers have confiscated knives, flagpoles, helmets and sticks with signs on them, things that were being used as weapons.
May 1
A May Day rally in Portland, Oregon, descended into chaos when the “anti-fascists” showed up, attacking police officers and setting fires.
NPR reports:
"Various fires were set in the street and in garbage cans, a police car was spray-painted and vandalized, and there were attempts to set at least one business on fire," according to Portland Police. "Numerous projectiles were thrown at or launched at police and firefighters including rocks, bottles, ball bearings, fireworks, smoke bombs, and road flares."
25 arrests were made. NPR adds that Portland wasn't the only city in the pacific north west marked by violence on May 1:
Police in Olympia, Wash., say they were confronted with a "mob" of masked and violent protesters who threw rocks and used slingshots to target officers. The situation settled down after officers used "crowd dispersal devices" and arrested several people.
August 27
In the wake of the rally in Charlottesville in which white supremacists clashed with counter-protesters, Antifa has upped their game.
On Sunday, members of Antifa “barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park,” writes Kyle Swenson of The Washington Post .
Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed, “Fascist go home!”
The Associated Press reports: “Six people suffered injuries, including two who were hospitalized, and one officer was injured while making an arrest and several others were hit with paint. ... There were 13 arrests on various charges including, assault with a deadly weapon.”
The anti-Marxist rally in Berkeley was organized by Amber Cummings, a transsexual supporter of Trump. Citing the potential for violence, she canceled the event but said she would show up on her own. She was not seen there, though Gibson vowed to come and when he did anarchists set upon him.
They pepper-sprayed him and chased him as he backed away with his hands held in the air. Gibson rushed behind a line of police wearing riot gear, who set off a smoke bomb to drive away the attackers.
Separately, groups of hooded, black-clad protesters attacked at least four other men in or near the park, kicking and punching them until the assaults were stopped by police. The assaults were witnessed by an Associated Press reporter.
Interestingly, AP adds that “Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said officers were told not to actively confront the anarchists. He applauded officers' restraint, saying it forestalled greater violence.”
So basically we have Antifa using violence to disrupt the Inauguration of the President, shutdown a planned speech by a conservative pundit, disrupt and stop a pro-Trump demonstration, and stop a planned anti-Marxist rally.
The fact that they were at the KKK rally has nothing to do with the KKK being fascists. They showed up for the violence. This is apparent because this rally was the THIRD rally the KKK held in Charlottesville. The first two were completely non-violent.
If we were to accept the liberal fallacious reasoning, then the counter argument must be true. That is:
· If you support Antifa, then you oppose the normal transfer of power from one administration to a new administration legally decided upon according to the Constitution of the United States. Which means you support violent objection to your candidate losing an election.
· If you support Antifa, then you support the violent suppression of free speech because you don’t like or are offended by an opposing party pundit.
· If you support Antifa, then you support the violent beating and suppression of supporters of the opposite party.
· If you support Antifa, then you support Marxism.
The irony of this is that the bullet list above looks very familiar. It looks like the playbook of the fascist of Germany in the 1930s, with the exception of supporting Marxism.
Using Charlottesville as a base for supporting Antifa is wrong. You cannot pick and choose one violent event to support a position that this terrorist group and its tactics are acceptable.
Let me close by stating this: You can oppose fascism, racism, White Supremacy and every other Neo-Nazi dogma, and still oppose Antifa. All it takes is the common sense that violence is not acceptable.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
I considered making this a RBR article, but I'll refrain. I will say that the CoC is to be followed. Some reminders: Stay on topic, honor the properly used Impasse rule, NO META.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
This I agree with you, in different terminology of course. More to follow in comments below, in which I respectfully disagree with you preamble.
How much do you know about fallacies?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Translation: After this, therefore, because of this (Latin)
The this in the statement can be anything one desires.
Example: Roosters crow just before the sun rises. Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.
The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect". Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.
Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences. Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective. Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking. This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.
Source: T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.
Quote…
(From; "The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation", Third Season, Episode One of The Big Bang Theory)
Sheldon (on phone): Oh, hi mom. … The Arctic expedition was a remarkable success, I’m all but certain there’s a Nobel Prize in my future. Actually, I shouldn’t say that. I’m entirely certain. No, mother, I could not feel your church group praying for my safety. The fact that I’m home safe is not proof that it worked, that logic is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. No, I’m not sassing you in Eskimo talk.
…Unquote
Just because lynchings happened in the past doesn't cause Antifa to be violent today. The argument that is does is a Post Hoc fallacy being used to justify an otherwise heinous practice.
Have a nice day.
Bruce, although I do not believe that ANTIFA is the same as the KKK/Nazi's/White Supremisists in terms of their violent history, I no way condone their violent actions.
I look that the groups as separate entities, each with a history of their own.
In my opinion we need to deal with each of these groups individually with the full force of the law.
What I have always found interesting is Germany has outlawed the Nazi party, the U.S. has not.
One can decry all of the groups without lumping them together.
I agree. Thanks for your comment.
In my opinion we need to deal with each of these groups individually with the full force of the law.
Well said as usual. I agree with your post!
I was wondering what merited yet another article about Antifa in such close proximity to the others , but this is an original work so we can go along with it.
The case made is that there were six instances of Antifa violence this year. Whether this is a little or a lot is left to the judgment of the reader I suppose.
13 arrests were made
25 arrests were made
8 arrests were made
on inauguration day during protests that numbered tens of thousands of people there were about 250 people arrested
I am not trying to underplay the violence. We would like all political protests to be peaceful and aimed at change through the ballot box.
I do wonder though, what everyone thinks this means. Are we headed for violent anarchic revolution? There is no evidence of that.
The truth is that all the concern about antifa from the right belies an attempt to rescue Trump's shredded reputation after he made a fool out of himself with his post Charlottesville comments. The president blamed both sides equally, therefore we must make sure that both sides are understood as an equivalence. That is the idea behind this.
It misrepresents reality though. White racism and white supremacy are ingrained in the psyche and history of this country. Anarchy is not.
Nope. Not even close. I could care less about rescuing Trump from himself. He's got a staff to do that.
No, the purpose of this article is to show the fallacious reasoning many here seem to feel applies to those who oppose Antifa. And to show the hypocrisy of supporting them because they are "fighting fascism", when they in fact are exhibiting fascist behavior.
And you're kidding yourself if you think opposition to Antifa is something new to conservatives. We've been opposing violent protests on this site since the first car was burned in Ferguson. Remember that? We were all labeled racist because we didn't cry when a thug got shot by a cop. We opposed the protests that blocked streets and interstates. We opposed the protests that led to the killing of 5 police officers in Dallas. We opposed the protests that shut down a Trump visit to Chicago during the campaign. We opposed the violence that took place at the Inauguration, which was part of the birth of Antifa.
Opposing violence in protests is not new.
It misrepresents reality though. White racism and white supremacy are ingrained in the psyche and history of this country. Anarchy is not.
LOL, now that is funny. Our founding fathers were anarchists, or did you miss that?
He definitely wiffed on that one..... {chuckle}
Perrie, if they were anarchists they would not have written and enacted a constitution.
Depends upon your point of view....
Before they got there, what do you think they were doing?
What was the Boston Tea Party?
Bunker Hill?
Lexington and Concord
And Sam Adams was a real pussycat.
Revolution does not equate necessarily with anarchy.
Samuel Adams later became a controversial figure in American history. Accounts written in the 19th century praised him as someone who had been steering his fellow colonists towards independence long before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War . This view gave way to negative assessments of Adams in the first half of the 20th century, in which he was portrayed as a master of propaganda who provoked mob violence to achieve his goals. Both of these interpretations have been challenged by some modern scholars, who argue that these traditional depictions of Adams are myths contradicted by the historical record.
Anarchism - Wikipedia
Anarchism can not last forever. Eventually some form of government will prevail. We were fortunate.
She wasn't talking about Anarchism, she was talking about Anarchists.
Huge difference there.
Dictionary?
Adams as a religious revolutionary who called for independence while many other American leaders still argued for reconciliation with Britain. He helped Massachusetts provide public education for girls before any other state did so. Unlike many founders, he denounced slavery. Adams was so radical that historians have compared him with black separatist Malcolm X, anarchist Emma Goldman, and even communist insurgents in Russia and China.
He was a fiery speaker and could really sway a crowd.
He is considered as the hot spark plug of the revolution.
Sam Adams could get the crowd going.
Because of this he drew a lot of fire upon himself, so much so that John his cousin had to distance himself from him.
Our founding fathers were anarchists, or did you miss that?
Nonsense.
They were revolutionaries, but certainly not anarchists.
if antifa overplays its hand through violence its goals will be rejected. america is not going to widely embrace violent anarchists.
what about the racists?
does america reject racism?
not so far
John, as a society, yes we have.
As individuals, not everyone yet, but we are getting there.
What we really need to be doing is not creating more...
Samuel Adams later became a controversial figure in American history. Accounts written in the 19th century praised him as someone who had been steering his fellow colonists towards independence long before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War . This view gave way to negative assessments of Adams in the first half of the 20th century, in which he was portrayed as a master of propaganda who provoked mob violence to achieve his goals. Both of these interpretations have been challenged by some modern scholars, who argue that these traditional depictions of Adams are myths contradicted by the historical record.
I think that Bruce's article has been completely derailed. We should get back to the subject.
You wrote:
When Antifa confronted the White Supremacists in Charlottesville last month, violence broke out. One person was killed and many others injured.
The facts are the Antifa had little or nothing to do with the specific incident that killed Heathder Heyer and injured 19 others. That was caused specifically by a white supremacists driving his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of people he knew to be not white supremacists like himself.
A man who appeared to be protesting Saturday with a group of self-proclaimed fascists is accused of killing a woman and injuring multiple others by driving his car into a crowd of marchers in Charlottesville, Va.
It was NOT Antifa who killed Heather Heyer, it was a White Supremacist who has been arrested and charged and will face trial for that act. Implying that Antifa is responsible for the death of Heather Heyer is incorrect to say the least.
Never said it was Antifa. But you're fooling yourself if you think Antifa wasn't violent before the car was driven into the crowd.
I never said anything about Antifa being or not being violent before, during or after the incident. I stated THE FACTS, that it was NOT an Antifa person who killed Heather Heyer. That killing was done by an Ohio man who was protesting with the white supremacists, and THAT IS A FACT. Antifa did not kill or participate at all in the killing of Heather Heyer. That is a fact, not an opinion.
And I never said it was Antifa.
IMPASSE
And I never said it was Antifa.
... and you studiously avoid saying "a neo-Nazi, the kind of person antifa opposes, murdered Heather Heyer."
That is the simple truth, but you aren’t interested in truth. You are part of an anti-antifa Swift-boat operation, where truth is proscribed.
Actually Bob, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who killed her, she's just as dead. Which is the point you seem to keep glazing over. Violence is Violence, no matter who the perpetrator is. You want everyone to renounce the violence of the KKK. We've done that. But you can't renounce the violence of Antifa. You want to quantify it, and accept that their violence is okay.
It doesn't matter who killed her, she's just as dead. Which is the point you seem to keep glazing over. Violence is Violence, no matter who the perpetrator is. You want everyone to renounce the violence of the KKK. We've done that.
This should make everyone's heads spin... 78 rpm!
"It doesn' t matter who..."
"... renounce the violence of the KKK. We've done that."
It was one of your "doesn't matter, we've renounced" who murdered Heather Heyer. It was pure terrorism, stifling one opponent permanently, and threatening all others.
But "it doesn't matter..."
And the guy who killed her is in jail. What else do you want Bob?
I want his crime clearly tagged "neo-Nazi / fascist terrorist murder".
It is spectacular to see how assiduously "certain members" are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid recognizing the obvious. Why, we may wonder, must fascist murderers never be called fascist murderers?
I want his crime clearly tagged "neo-Nazi / fascist terrorist murder".
Sure. Talk to the DA. He might just do that. Because, well, that would make his punishment so much more severe than just, say, murder. Right Bob?
It is spectacular to see how assiduously "certain members" are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid recognizing the obvious.
And who would you be talking about Bob? Obvious what Bob? Murder?
Why, we may wonder, must fascist murderers never be called fascist murderers?
You can call him what ever you want Bob. But tell me, what exactly do you gain by adding the term fascist to murder? And why MUST we call him that? Are you using fallacious reasoning again Bob. That if we don't somehow call him by this term that you just came up with, it must mean we support fascists?
And quite frankly, I don't remember seeing anyone here say we must never call them fascist murderers. Can you point it out to me? Where someone said don't call him that?
You say in your preamble:
Most conservatives I know would agree with me when I say violence against violence is never the answer.
Then you say:
But to liberals, the violence of Antifa is acceptable,
Question
Why do you say "most conservatives" something, and imply "all liberals" are something else? That seems to be completely fallacious and biased thinking.
I know a lot of people on all sides and most of them on all sides hate violence, and decry violence. Most conservatives I know agree that violence is never the answer, just as most liberals I know also say that violence is never the answer. The way you have written your treatise strongly implies that ALL LIBERALS support and promote violence and the Antifa, that you will not give them the benefit of the doubt that you freely extend to conservatives, and that is incorrect to say the very least.
I'll allow it. Actually, no I wont. I didn't say "All Liberals". I said Liberals. See, you're using fallacious reasoning to assume that I mean ALL because I didn't use the word SOME.
By qualifying "most conservatives" and stating "liberals" without such qualification, you imply ALL liberals. Sorry. You may not allow it, but that is the way it reads.
Well, as someone else has said before, that's your opinion. But it's not a fact.
Mine is not an opinion as much as it is a non-biased interpretation of clear bias on your part in your writing. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Non-Biased? Are you kidding me? Ma'am you made the point 4 fucking times. And 4 fucking times I explained that absent the word Some does NOT mean all. Now, get over it.
Please do NOT call me "Cupcake" or any other names. I believe name-calling is a CoC violation, is it not?
It's a term of endearment. You should feel honored. Ask Perrie.
IMPASSE
Comment removed skirting COC 96WS6
You continue on:
But the problem is conservatives also condemn Antifa. Even the President said there was blame on both sides. Well. This doesn’t sit well with liberals. Antifa, which is short for Anti-Fascist, was in fact on the opposite side of Fascists: The KKK. So in the eyes of the liberals, they were the Great Crusaders, fighting for justice and liberty for all, amen.
Any statement claiming that "most conservatives" do one thing, but implies "all liberals" feel completely different is incorrect. Such a statement shows a complete bias against liberals, because ALL LIBERALS do NOT think and feel the same way.
From my own personal experience of knowing many people from every side of the political spectrum I can say without doubt that Most Liberals like Most Conservatives decry violence in any form from any side. But that is not what your comment is saying, is it?
And you repeat your same biased thesis at least a third time when you say:
Most conservatives I know would agree with me when I say violence against violence is never the answer. The only time I support a violent response is in self-defense, and then only that force necessary to stop the threat.
But to liberals, the violence of Antifa is acceptable, because, well, they were fighting fascists. And if you oppose that, then you are in support of fascism, and the fascist racist groups.
Liberals tend to forget the violence that Antifa has been known for. Here is a chronological list of their violent behavior just this year.
I know Liberals and I know Conservatives, and I know most of the people I know, whether Conservative of Liberal HATE violence in any form as a means of promoting political change.
That is MOST liberals and MOST conservatives hate violence.
Only a small faction of BOTH CAMPS promotes and supports violence as a means for political change. A very small, but very vocal faction, like those from both sides who showed up armed and ready to do violence in Charlottesville.
BOTH SIDES.
Again, never said ALL. Don't make an assumption because the word SOME isn't there.
Again, you may have never said it, but you did most definitely imply it because you qualified the one and not the other. The way it reads is the way it reads, and it reads with strong bias.
Nope. You don't get to make that kind of assumption. It's been explained here in the responses, so you don't get to keep making it a point. You may want it to mean that, but it doesn't. Absent the word Some doesn't mean ALL just because that qualifier was used before. That's not my writing style. You'll learn that in due time.
Again, I am NOT stating an opinion, and I am NOT making an assumption. I am INTERPRETING THE WORDS YOU HAVE WRITTEN, which are very clearly baised against liberals.
p.s. I very much doubt I will learn anything here in time, as I doubt I will be here much longer. I see the way things are, and I see that I do not apparently fit-in here because I am not pro-conservative or anti-liberal. I am middle of the road independent, and some see that as much anti-conservative as they see liberals as anti-conservatives. Sorry, I seek truth an facts but I find little of that here.
And I'm telling you, your interpretation is wrong. What else do you want?
Honesty is all I want ever.
Really? Do you not believe me honest when I tell you that absent SOME doesn't mean ALL?
IMPASSE
I'd like to say something,
I too am kind of a stickler to the "some, part of, many, most " precursor being used, But I still from time to time don’t even use it myself every time. I have gotten much better through. Because more of us are picking up on it when the disclaimer isn't used.. Many cons and many libs and many independents alike...LOL
I haven't gotten used to all the details of the conversation rules here yet so I hope I am not overstepping any.
But, That's just my 2 cents worth.
09/05/17 02:58:53AM @321steve:
I'd like to say something,
I too am kind of a stickler to the "some, part of, many, most " precursor being used, But I still from time to time don’t even use it myself every time. I have gotten much better through. Because more of us are picking up on it when the disclaimer isn't used.. Many cons and many libs and many independents alike...LOL
I haven't gotten used to all the details of the conversation rules here yet so I hope I am not overstepping any.
But, That's just my 2 cents worth.
E.A Here have a refund of Four!
Heres one back.
"ALL" is auto assumed if you qualify only one side of the argument. The lack of qualifier when speaking of Liberals is definitively heard as "all Liberals". Squirrel is correct.
And if you want an honest comment, you should relax and think hard about leaving. From what I've seen of you so far, you're doing okay. A little rusty with the rules and policies, but we can work on that. Trust me when I say this is not a Conservative Site. Nor is it a Liberal Site. Just relax. You're doing fine.
Again, never said ALL. Don't make an assumption because the word SOME isn't there.
Actually, Bruce... Squirrel is perfectly justified.
In English, a collective noun is assumed to mean "all" unless a qualifier is also used.
"Baseball players are dumb."
"Football players are even dumber."
"Women are bad drivers."
These statements get a reaction because of rhe assumed "all". If the assumption were "some", these statements would be true, but uninteresting.
The topic is not my writing style Bob. I should not have allowed Squirrel to spam it with so many comments about it. You've already made one comment earlier showing your support for her position. And I've promptly ignored it. Do not continue to spam the article with additional comments about my writing style. Only warning.
I will end this by quoting Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Facts are facts. You can be of the opinion that "Most Conservatives" hate violence, and "All Liberals" love violence, but that is NOT a fact. That is only your opinion.
Non sequitur
Reductio ad absurdum
LOL!!!! That's what, 4 comments where you say ALL? Reread the article Squirrel. Show me where I say ALL Liberals. Not an implication, where I actually say ALL.
Are you sure you're not letting your opinion override the facts?
ROTFLAMAO! I NEVER said you wrote "all liberals". I said you STRONGLY IMPLIED ALL LIBERALS and you did. Reread my comments. The nreread your own article. It is there. Whether you are willing to admit it or not. It is there.
Again, it's been explained. Do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion besides my writing style?
IMPASSE
I've opened this article up for comment again. I had it locked because I knew I would not be available to moderate it yesterday with my volunteer work.
Have at it!
I can't speak for every community in America.
I only wish you were.
Sorry folks. I need to get some sleep. Gonna shut down the article for a few hours. Be back open sometime after noon.
Sorry, I over slept. Article is back open for comments.
Funny how you don't have the balls to say the anything to BF. He posts many more objectionable things. You made your point. Only what you deem appropriate or worthy should be posted on this site. Are you speaking as a MOD. Just want to make sure I know who is instructing me tonight.
What the hell are you talking about?
It was directed to Buzz but he deleted his comment to me so my comment looks out of place. Calm down - no one's questioning your balls.
I guess you would have to have balls to put your comment about me where I would notice it.
As it happens, you weren't around then, but I laid into BF pretty good when he screwed up a Classic Cinema Quiz of mine. As well, I had plenty to say, and probably contributed to his being suspended when he posted the most disgustingly ugly photo I had ever seen on NT. So I don't need someone BORN without balls telling me I don't have balls.
"So I don't need someone BORN without balls telling me I don't have balls"
You shouldn't assume without evidence...
nice
Reminds me of the same level of useless bickering newsvine had.