• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas DA, wife killed -- 2 months after his deputy is gunned down [W:627]

sangha said:
Of course you would say that. You are determined to minimize every fact that refutes your claims.
Click to expand...

1) I'm pretty sure I'll manage being proven wrong on the internet.

2) No, a bad argument is a bad argument. This is true regardless of what I want



The link I posted describes AB as engaging in terrorism. The SPLC says their activities are primarily criminal, but that they also engage in terrorism
Click to expand...

Nope, it described an alleged incident where someone asked about explosives to attack federal building. Building that house investigative agencies and agencies that handle prosecutions at the federal level, So even if true, it could still be a criminally motivated act






No, my link describes three terrorist crimes, and the one you refer to is explicitly describe as terrorism
Click to expand...

Only one alleged incident involved actual planning from the organization, as opposed to activities carried out by it's members.

If someone from the cartels decides to kill a republican because he personally hates his politics, that doesn't change the fact the cartels are a criminal gang and are not really interested in politics, beyond how it impacts their criminal activities
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) I'm pretty sure I'll manage being proven wrong on the internet.

2) No, a bad argument is a bad argument. This is true regardless of what I want


Nope, it described an alleged incident where someone asked about explosives to attack federal building. Building that house investigative agencies and agencies that handle prosecutions at the federal level, So even if true, it could still be a criminally motivated act








Only one alleged incident involved actual planning from the organization, as opposed to activities carried out by it's members.

If someone from the cartels decides to kill a republican because he personally hates his politics, that doesn't change the fact the cartels are a criminal gang and are not really interested in politics, beyond how it impacts their criminal activities
Click to expand...

The article describes three instances of terrorist activities, and unlike the drug cartels, the AB has an identifiable political component.
 
calamity said:
Holy Smokes!
Texas DA, wife killed -- 2 months after deputy gunned down - CNN.com



Other news sources are tying the Aryan Brotherhood in as likely suspects for both prosecutor killings, and the one of the prison chief in Colorado..
Texas DA and Wife Killed, Possible Aryan Brotherhood Link | Crooks and Liars
Click to expand...

Wait, this is Texas??

I thought with all the loose gun laws in the lone star state, and their 2nd amendment freedoms etc., that this never happens down there.

What went wrong?
 
mr4anarchy said:
Wait, this is Texas??

I thought with all the loose gun laws in the lone star state, and their 2nd amendment freedoms etc., that this never happens down there.

What went wrong?
Click to expand...
Didn't draw fast enough? If only he had carried his gun to the door...

Not to make too much light of it, it is ironic that this happened in fully armed Texas.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
why should we even consider what you have to say, especially given the clear political motivations you two have?
Click to expand...
This is what I find so weird. You see, when someone say to me "well, X is a lw extremist group and did Y", I say sure, they did that, but that has no reflection upon my beliefs since I don't believe that violence is required to reach the goals i have.

But when we show that the AB is an extremist rw group who falls within the definition of domestic terrorists, you don't say what I say above....you instead spend all of your time in this thread denying that they are a rw extremist group, denying that they are terrorists.

One has to wonder.....what is your agenda, your motivation?

Again, I have no problem that their are extremist lw groups that reach the level of terrorists, I always find it so weird how conservatives will spend so much time writing as if their side is pure, without stain.

It is so ridiculous....and pointless.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
But when we show that the AB is an extremist rw group
Click to expand...

see, that is your problem, you did no such thing. And your motivation is outlined by your need to define them as a political rw terrorist group, when the experts in the firld describe them as a criminal gang
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
see, that is your problem, you did no such thing.
Click to expand...
Of course we did, both myself and Sangha. I presented the definition accepted by thrill, we showed the constitutional articles fulfilling those definitions, that was settled pages ago, yesterday.


And your motivation is outlined by your need to define them as a political rw terrorist group, when the experts in the firld describe them as a criminal gang
Click to expand...
Well dear, I'm not having to appeal to authority, I am showing that they are RWA's and fit the definition of terrorists, both arguments you lost yesterday.

The point of my last post was totally avoided by you, and that ironically goes straight to the point you brought up....you can't even begin to address the fact that you are still so obsessed with keeping your own view of conservatism squeaky clean that it brings you to this state of denying constantly what the AB is. It would be, in your view, a stain upon your ideology. It is sad, since I don't think it would reflect upon you...unless you share some of their views.

When a person accuses others of certain "motivations", but can't come clean in describing his own beliefs AND continues to defend a extremist rw group, well I'm afraid it just shows ones true colors.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
well dear, I'm not having to appeal to authority
Click to expand...

you must not understand why and when appealing to an authority is a fallacy. It's a fallacy when you appeal to some perceived authority on a subject, but with that perceived authority having no real expertise in the area under question

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Click to expand...

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

clearly both the FBI and SPLC can speak as authorities on the nature of the Aryan Brotherhood
 
Thrilla said:
holy ****.... did this really need to be turned into a left v right issue?

I swear, i'll bet some people here would see a blowjob as a partisan issue.:roll:
Click to expand...

Well, they jumped to the conclusion that they were RW terrorists. The cops don't even know who they are yet.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Of course we did, both myself and Sangha. I presented the definition accepted by thrill, we showed the constitutional articles fulfilling those definitions, that was settled pages ago, yesterday.


Well dear, I'm not having to appeal to authority, I am showing that they are RWA's and fit the definition of terrorists, both arguments you lost yesterday.

The point of my last post was totally avoided by you, and that ironically goes straight to the point you brought up....you can't even begin to address the fact that you are still so obsessed with keeping your own view of conservatism squeaky clean that it brings you to this state of denying constantly what the AB is. It would be, in your view, a stain upon your ideology. It is sad, since I don't think it would reflect upon you...unless you share some of their views.

When a person accuses others of certain "motivations", but can't come clean in describing his own beliefs AND continues to defend a extremist rw group, well I'm afraid it just shows ones true colors.
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
you must not understand why and when appealing to an authority is a fallacy. It's a fallacy when you appeal to some perceived authority on a subject, but with that perceived authority having no real expertise in the area under question

clearly both the FBI and SPLC can speak as authorities on the nature of the Aryan Brotherhood
Click to expand...
In my book, when a person twice is requested to comment on reasons and motivation for posting on a subject and refuses to do so, that is conceding to the points made.

Again, thanks for playing, better luck next time.
 
LowDown said:
Well, they jumped to the conclusion that they were RW terrorists. The cops don't even know who they are yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes..."they" did.......which included YOU:

calamity said:
Holy Smokes!
Texas DA, wife killed -- 2 months after deputy gunned down - CNN.com



Other news sources are tying the Aryan Brotherhood in as likely suspects for both prosecutor killings, and the one of the prison chief in Colorado..
Texas DA and Wife Killed, Possible Aryan Brotherhood Link | Crooks and Liars
Click to expand...

LowDown said:
And this is being reported in CNN, crooksandliars.com, Chicago Tribune, talkingpointsmemo.com? Finally some terrorists that left wingers can get concerned about!
Click to expand...


HA!!!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
In my book, when a person twice is requested to comment on reasons and motivation for posting on a subject and refuses to do so, that is conceding to the points made.

Again, thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

You can find plenty of remarks on this forum where I criticize the right, conservatism, social conservatives, the republican party, etc. Not everyone is like you and needs to even make a blowjob a partisan issue, and I'm surely not going to pay much attention to such accusations
 
LowDown said:
Well, they jumped to the conclusion that they were RW terrorists. The cops don't even know who they are yet.
Click to expand...

dude, you were the first person to inject anything partisan into the discussion.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
You can find plenty of remarks on this forum where I criticize the right, conservatism, social conservatives, the republican party, etc. Not everyone is like you and needs to even make a blowjob a partisan issue, and I'm surely not going to pay much attention to such accusations
Click to expand...
Funny....since you just brought it up (for what number of times?) again......while you still avoid my point. I could care less about what you claim about your past, I am talking about what you are doing here, now.

This the 4th avoidance of my point here...with more of the same diversion.

If you really don't want to address it, then stop quoting my point.
 
apdst said:
They were diligent enough. Had they been more diligent, they might not have fell victim to an ambush.

By your logic, however, the Secret Service agents that pull Obama's security detail should do so, unarmed.
Click to expand...


This does not compute. How can one say the dead were "diligent enough" and then in the next sentence write, "Had they been more diligent"?


By your logic, apparently anything posted by a political opponent may be construed in ways that were never mentioned, have no logical connection to posted words and is basically nonsense.
 
Somerville said:
This does not compute. How can one say the dead were "diligent enough" and then in the next sentence write, "Had they been more diligent"?


By your logic, apparently anything posted by a political opponent may be construed in ways that were never mentioned, have no logical connection to posted words and is basically nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's called a, "typo". Folks with half a brain would be able to figure out what I meant. They would be like, "oh, he musta meant 'weren't'"
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Nope, my first post in this thread complained about him and another poster turning the discussion partisan.

Again, not everyone is like you
Click to expand...
When did I ever say that I expected you or anyone else to be like me?

What a non-sequitur.

Oh snap....I did expect you to be like me....when I asked for you to answer your own question
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom