Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Hypocrisy Defined - Fox News on Deploying federal agents in 2020 vs. 2014

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,031

    Re: Hypocrisy Defined - Fox News on Deploying federal agents in 2020 vs. 2014

    faux is far right propaganda.

  2. #12
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,555

    Re: Hypocrisy Defined - Fox News on Deploying federal agents in 2020 vs. 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    The second case is "seizing private property."
    "from federal land."

  3. #13
    Sage
    SonOfDaedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,203

    Re: Hypocrisy Defined - Fox News on Deploying federal agents in 2020 vs. 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    No.

    I think it is you who refused to see the difference.

    The first case is simply defending government personnel and property.

    The second case is "seizing private property."
    In the first case aren't they seizing people?

    Case 1, seizing people. Case 2, seizing property. Both for violating federal law.

    I like your attempt at deception. You describe the first case in terms of what the government was trying to protect. You describe the second case in terms of the actions taken in order to protect. It's a very clever attempt at deception.

    I could easily characterize Case 2 as defending government property.

  4. #14
    Sage W_Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,934

    Re: Hypocrisy Defined - Fox News on Deploying federal agents in 2020 vs. 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    wiki and i were under the belief the 2014 incident was over the bundy's failure to pay just financial obligations for grazing on federal lands
    Bundy standoff - Wikipedia
    Good post. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfDaedalus View Post
    In the first case aren't they seizing people?

    Case 1, seizing people. Case 2, seizing property. Both for violating federal law.

    I like your attempt at deception. You describe the first case in terms of what the government was trying to protect. You describe the second case in terms of the actions taken in order to protect. It's a very clever attempt at deception.

    I could easily characterize Case 2 as defending government property.
    Good post. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    Did they not cover the concept of relevance back in Evidence?

    I guess not, or you skipped that day, because that distinction doesn't help you even if it were true. Trump sent in his feds to kidnap, strip-search, and generally harass peaceful protesters, knowing that this would stir up the post and bootstrap a justification for sending them into existence. This was caught on multiple videos, etc. As they've left, things quieted down.

    Meanwhile, Obama sent in feds and unlike what Trump's would do, they did not open fire even when a whole bunch of Bundy supporters trained weapons on them.



    That's the relevant distinction. Then again, you're the guy who claimed pictures and videos of police slashing cars' tires was "not evidence" of police slashing cars' tires because it served your narrative, only admitting fault when the police said they were slashing tires; that, because it served your Trumpist narrative.

    Say, did they cover credibility, at least?
    Good post.
    Dump Trump in 2020.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •