Originally posted by Scribble
Even if so, I'd say his point stands. Emotional response isn't as important as textual accuracy. The two scenarios are different, CHOP should have been shut down less than a week into it, imo. Much more dangerous scenario.
His point was to strawman my observation. Hence my "spasm" comment. If he had calmly asked me which scenario I thought was worse, we would have had a different exchange. But emotions.
Originally posted by Robtard
His point was to strawman my observation. Hence my "spasm" comment. If he had calmly asked me which scenario I thought was worse, we would have had a different exchange. But emotions.
Why play games? You tried to deflect by bringing up a situation that just wasn't comparable.
A situation that threatened nobody was allowed to go on longer than one that threatened many and actually impacted people. What is your point?
Actually, you're wrong there again.
See, if you had calmly asked me instead of the strawman shit you would have also learned that while not equal in scope, the Bundy's did threaten people. They threatened law enforcement personal with violence if they tried to remove the Bundy squad from the building before the Bundy's demands were met.
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, you're wrong there again.See, if you had calmly asked me instead of the strawman shit you would have also learned that while not equal in scope, the Bundy's did threaten people. They threatened law enforcement personal with violence if they tried to remove the Bundy squad from the building before the Bundy's demands were met.
I think that equating the 2 in violence is a disservice, both of them over stepped.
I just can't figure out how it's not a deflection, even if we're merely using the definition of "deflection" that rob and his pals use.
Just in another thread I mentioned how supposedly russian bounties were happening during Obama's presidency too. This was met with "blah blah obama".
Either it's okay or it's not.