Today's attack was an act of terrorism

[FJO]

If baseball is a thing of the past, then America is a thing of the past.

For the 100th time ...I meant the senators baseball games..

And yet, the game goes on as usual, tomorrow.

And safe to say, in the future.

As indeed it should.

Seriously though, these guy are sitting ducks out there now ... but you are right.

Actually this shooting could be "terrorism" if it had been meant to intimidate Congresspeople from playing baseball, under the threat of further violence. That would actually make the OP work.

Somehow I don't get the impression that was his motive though.

Whether you are a Congressperson or not, when shots fly by your head, aimed at you, if you are not terrorized, you must be a MUSLIM ready to die and meet the 72 year old virgin or you are cool customer or you are a total idiot.

 

[FJO]

Call the man what he was: A DEMOCRAT terrorist.

Link?

Significance?

Rationalization for why this is not just another lameass Composition Fallacy?


Call the man what he was -- a gun nut.

Sorry, my bad, He was not a Democrat, He was a Bernie Sanders acolyte. Therefore he was an Independent like his idol,
He was an Independent TERRORIST.

OK --- on to questions 2 and 3?

Start with that We'll leave the definition of "terrorism" as posted for now but do regale us with tales of how this is not some kind of Composition Fallacy.

WTF??

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Was Dylan Roof a terrorist ? You didn't hear that label much .

When you target political leaders , is it really terrorism? Terrorists attack civilians in order to well "terrorize " people .

So how many backers did Roof have?

 

[Pogo]

Link?

Significance?

Rationalization for why this is not just another lameass Composition Fallacy?


Call the man what he was -- a gun nut.

Sorry, my bad, He was not a Democrat, He was a Bernie Sanders acolyte. Therefore he was an Independent like his idol,
He was an Independent TERRORIST.

OK --- on to questions 2 and 3?

Start with that We'll leave the definition of "terrorism" as posted for now but do regale us with tales of how this is not some kind of Composition Fallacy.

WTF??

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

 

[FJO]

Sorry, my bad, He was not a Democrat, He was a Bernie Sanders acolyte. Therefore he was an Independent like his idol,
He was an Independent TERRORIST.

OK --- on to questions 2 and 3?

Start with that We'll leave the definition of "terrorism" as posted for now but do regale us with tales of how this is not some kind of Composition Fallacy.

WTF??

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

 

[Pogo]

OK --- on to questions 2 and 3?

Start with that We'll leave the definition of "terrorism" as posted for now but do regale us with tales of how this is not some kind of Composition Fallacy.

WTF??

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

 

[FJO]

WTF??

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

 

[Pogo]

For the 100th time ...I meant the senators baseball games..

And yet, the game goes on as usual, tomorrow.

And safe to say, in the future.

As indeed it should.

Seriously though, these guy are sitting ducks out there now ... but you are right.

Actually this shooting could be "terrorism" if it had been meant to intimidate Congresspeople from playing baseball, under the threat of further violence. That would actually make the OP work.

Somehow I don't get the impression that was his motive though.

Whether you are a Congressperson or not, when shots fly by your head, aimed at you, if you are not terrorized, you must be a MUSLIM ready to die and meet the 72 year old virgin or you are cool customer or you are a total idiot.

Once AGAIN for those reading in Hungarian --- "people being terrorized" is not the definition of terrorism. People are terrorized by an earthquake. Or a bear in the campsite. Or being abducted by a serial killer. Terrorism --- actual real terrorism --- requires coercion. A threat of violence if the target does not do something or stop doing something. There must be a message.

Take Eric Rudolph. Please. Bombed a lesbian bar and abortion clinics His message "stop doing abortions/stop being gay or you'll be bombed".

 

[Pogo]

That's exactly what I said when I read your moronic post.

Now answer the question. Exactly HOW is what you just posted NOT a Composition Fallacy?

Is shooting people on a baseball field how we cast a vote in this country?
No, it is not.

Therefore what the fuck significance is your adjective "Democrat" which then became "Independent"? His political registration --- which you don't even know --- is relevant exactly how?

I'm an Independent. Are you saying I shoot people on baseball fields or what?

What exactly ARE you saying? Do you even know?

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker is fucking Google down?

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

"Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than a pound."

Wrong. Fallacy.

"James Hodgkinson was a (presumed) Democrat. James Hodgkinson shot people at a baseball field. Therefore all Democrats shoot people on baseball fields".

Wrong. Fallacy.

 

[WEATHER53]

Since the avowed intent was to spread fear to people of a specified political affiliation; it was an act of terror
In all of it for all the years since this sprang up I have never felt terrified but rather sickened by the ghoulish nature of it and the cowardly aspect to it

 

[FJO]

And yet, the game goes on as usual, tomorrow.

And safe to say, in the future.

As indeed it should.

Seriously though, these guy are sitting ducks out there now ... but you are right.

Actually this shooting could be "terrorism" if it had been meant to intimidate Congresspeople from playing baseball, under the threat of further violence. That would actually make the OP work.

Somehow I don't get the impression that was his motive though.

Whether you are a Congressperson or not, when shots fly by your head, aimed at you, if you are not terrorized, you must be a MUSLIM ready to die and meet the 72 year old virgin or you are cool customer or you are a total idiot.

Once AGAIN for those reading in Hungarian --- "people being terrorized" is not the definition of terrorism. People are terrorized by an earthquake. Or a bear in the campsite. Or being abducted by a serial killer. Terrorism --- actual real terrorism --- requires coercion. A threat of violence if the target does not do something or stop doing something. There must be a message.

Take Eric Rudolph. Please. Bombed a lesbian bar and abortion clinics His message "stop doing abortions/stop being gay or you'll be bombed".

DICTIONARY definition - not fanciful nonsensical definition, embellished by liberal nonsense, similar to black definition of racism - is simply:

Use of terror and violence to intimidate.

 

[FJO]

WTF??

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker is fucking Google down?

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

"Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than a pound."

Wrong. Fallacy.

"James Hodgkinson was a (presumed) Democrat. James Hodgkinson shot people at a baseball field. Therefore all Democrats shoot people on baseball fields".

Wrong. Fallacy.

Quote me saying that.
Or anything like it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

An attack that was specifically carried out for political reasons.

Call the man what he was, a TERRORIST

That label is never applied to whites unless they are practicing Muslims.

I wasn't expecting any race baiting in this thread but you never disappoint

Call it whatever you like snowflake but you can't call it incorrect. That's all that matters sweetie

Nonsensical gibberish of course. What is it like to be obsessed with finding racism in EVERY aspect of life?
I feel sorry for people like you

 

[Pogo]

So again --- no answer. You're admitting the entire charade is based on logical fallacy.

Thank you. Next please.....

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker is fucking Google down?

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

"Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than a pound."

Wrong. Fallacy.

"James Hodgkinson was a (presumed) Democrat. James Hodgkinson shot people at a baseball field. Therefore all Democrats shoot people on baseball fields".

Wrong. Fallacy.

Quote me saying that.
Or anything like it.

You idiot. I quoted you the FIRST TIME. And you're still here trying to weasel your way out of it.

ROLL TAPE.

An attack that was specifically carried out for political reasons.

Call the man what he was, a TERRORIST

Call the man what he was: A DEMOCRAT terrorist.

I would highlight the fallacious part but you yourself already put it in ALL CAPS.

My thunder you're a moron.

 

[Freewill]

The neocon that slit the throats of two heroes last week that were defending a woman, terrorist? Cons seem to want to ignore and forget this guy very quickly.

Considering that liberals have absolutely no stomach for fighting one can only assume that it was conservatives that were trying to protect people from an obviously deranged man. Two men die standing up for Muslims and you can only play the dark side. Sad really.

 

[FJO]

You got your answer in post #61.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker is fucking Google down?

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

"Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than a pound."

Wrong. Fallacy.

"James Hodgkinson was a (presumed) Democrat. James Hodgkinson shot people at a baseball field. Therefore all Democrats shoot people on baseball fields".

Wrong. Fallacy.

Quote me saying that.
Or anything like it.

You idiot. I quoted you the FIRST TIME. And you're still here trying to weasel your way out of it.

ROLL TAPE.

An attack that was specifically carried out for political reasons.

Call the man what he was, a TERRORIST

Call the man what he was: A DEMOCRAT terrorist.

I would highlight the fallacious part but you yourself already put it in ALL CAPS.

My thunder you're a moron.

And you are a liberal asshole, who tries to justify his existence by lying, misquoting, obfuscating and misrepresenting and trying to change the obvious.

I am thru wasting my time with you. I would put you on ignore but I don't want to deny myself the chuckles I get from your posts.

GOODBYE.

 

[Pogo]

Oh I already addressed the OP. That's not in play here.
Your question was to show how your obsession with pinning a political party adjective on the shooter is not a Composition Fallacy. You can't do it, because it IS.

So you already lost the point. Move along now, there are other people waiting in line to be spanked.

Define "Composition Fallacy".

Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker is fucking Google down?

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

"Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than a pound."

Wrong. Fallacy.

"James Hodgkinson was a (presumed) Democrat. James Hodgkinson shot people at a baseball field. Therefore all Democrats shoot people on baseball fields".

Wrong. Fallacy.

Quote me saying that.
Or anything like it.

You idiot. I quoted you the FIRST TIME. And you're still here trying to weasel your way out of it.

ROLL TAPE.

An attack that was specifically carried out for political reasons.

Call the man what he was, a TERRORIST

Call the man what he was: A DEMOCRAT terrorist.

I would highlight the fallacious part but you yourself already put it in ALL CAPS.

My thunder you're a moron.

And you are a liberal asshole, who tries to justify his existence by lying, misquoting, obfuscating and misrepresenting and trying to change the obvious.

I am thru wasting my time with you. I would put you on ignore but I don't want to deny myself the chuckles I get from your posts.

GOODBYE.

As already noted --- you have no answer.

Also have no integrity since you can't admit to your own fallacy when it's posted right to your face.
Can't say I'm surprised.

Okay NEXT?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The neocon that slit the throats of two heroes last week that were defending a woman, terrorist? Cons seem to want to ignore and forget this guy very quickly.

Considering that liberals have absolutely no stomach for fighting one can only assume that it was conservatives that were trying to protect people from an obviously deranged man. Two men die standing up for Muslims and you can only play the dark side. Sad really.

Reality is really just an abstract to you.