-
-
Re: Time to drive thre liberals nuts
Firs of all, Sean Hannity should've been fired long ago. He is incapable of admitting he is wrong, and doesn't accept correction from his guests. I prefer Tucker Carlson.
The video was interesting until the guy said @3:22 "pivot to those 'quote - other riots, tries to draw that false equivalency.'"
Are you serious? In what way, in any way is that a false equivalency? There are literally HUNDREDS of videos, online right now, where Left Groups literally destroy federal buildings. Kill people. Torture people. Leave them with cracked skulls. HUNDREDS. Unless his argument was that it's a false equivalence because the Jan' 6th 'riot' was TAME by comparison. The audacity.
Also, @2:19 he continues to reach for false conclusions. He's saying that Sean "melts down", but I just watched the clip, there is no melt down. I have SEEN on air melt downs. Rachel Maddow literally was crying. Anchors are Univision were BALLING, having panic attacks on air. Look them up on YouTube.
@2:21 he said that Sean tries to keep Gerardo quiet. HOW?! He wanted him to stay on topic. Gerardo LITTERALLY controls the screen @0:55 after the verbal "stop" at @0:29. How does he keep him quiet.
Guy is annoying. Jesus.
I continued watching. @6:15, undeniable proof, that the guy, whoever the dimwit is himself in a cult.
He claims that "republicans", meaning all of them, grovel at Trumps shoes. There are a lot of Republicans critical of Trump. Tucker himself has ben very critical of him in his show. Look them up. I can't man, he's just spewing words out of his mouth trying to sound smart, but you look at things line by line, and he's reaching to conclusions on a foundation built on Sand. And so, the video as a whole LOOKS and SOUNDS rational, but it's foundations are flawed. You can't build an argument on a lie.
Not even going to mention the ad hominems.
I encourage everyone to read this article.
Argument from fallacy - WikipediaComment
-
Re: Time to drive thre liberals nuts
The title of this thread is drive liberals nuts. But I don't think we have any liberals on this board. I would call them Marxists.
You'll have to decide for yourself how radical they'll get to achieve that end goal.The definition of Marxism is the theory of Karl Marx which says that society's classes are the cause of struggle and that society should have no classes. An example of Marxism is replacing private ownership with co-operative ownership.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: Time to drive thre liberals nuts
You're a Marxist whether you know it or not. That's evident from your hate of rich people and corporations. You've made many statements on the wealth gap that prove you're a Marxist. And you've proven that you have no problem with violence as witnessed during the BLM and Antifa murders and riots.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: Time to drive thre liberals nuts
Would still call them Liberals, but your right on Marxism.
It's comments like these that does in fact bother me though, why call someone radical? I understand that the comment's purpose is to make a passive insult, thus somehow delegitimizing the whole thread. But why call "radical right"? It's the same as someone says "far right" or "alt-right".
Never understood how commenting, or offering criticism, whether constructive or destructive can be construed as radicalism.Comment
-
Re: Time to drive thre liberals nuts
Use proper terms I argue. She identifies as a Democratic Socialist.
Rooted in the Socialist Party of America, but the DSA has Socialists and Communists.
So, she is, a socialist, but communism would suit her fine as well as she is not bothered by the comment. At least from the articles I have seen.Comment
Comment