What happened in Oregon will happen nationally after 2020

That's what I got out of the bill.

Bullshit.

You say the bill does all these things, yet you cannot seem to cite the actual text in the bill that says what you claim. How come?

You say this: It creates penalties for breathing. Where in this bill does it do that?

Cite the section and quote it directly.
 
You want the state to use violence against its own citizens who have done nothing illegal

Threatening elected officials is illegal.

There is no such thing as a peaceful threat.

What would a peaceful threat even be?

"Flash, I am going to kill your family by hugging them to death"?

Is that a "peaceful threat"?

"Flash, I'm going to beat the ever-loving shit out of you with a box of chocolates"?

Is that a "peaceful threat"?
 
You are advocating the state use of violence.

Only in response to the threats Conservatives made; threats you said were somehow peaceful, even though law enforcement deemed the threats credible, as they said in the same link you used to try and argue they weren't.

So if we can just make threats now with no consequences....
 
OK, so how is measuring something a violation of your rights?

You also didn't cite where in the bill it says your rights are violated...and I even linked the bill to you so you could do that.

You couldn't do that because the bill doesn't do that.

I remember hearing very similar arguments from conservatives after the PATRIOT ACT was passed. are you a closet conservative?
 
So...now comes the part of the debate where you lazily demand accommodation because you cannot fathom the possibility that you aren't as informed on this subject as others.

Republicans in Oregon appeared to think the militia and threats to Democratic lawmakers were funny when they took to Twitter to satirize the situation. “Heavily armed militia lays siege to Oregon’s Capitol as Senate Democrats cower in fear,” the Oregon GOP tweeted. As the Oregonian pointed out, the joke seemed to be insinuating that Democrats were scared of peacefully protesting Oregonians, but the state police had deemed the threats against Democrats credible.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/oregon-legislature-climate-change-bill-chaos.html

You're actually trying to quote Slate.com at him as an authoritative reference???
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You are an easy victim of fake news!
 
Only in response to the threats Conservatives made; threats you said were somehow peaceful, even though law enforcement deemed the threats credible, as they said in the same link you used to try and argue they weren't.

So if we can just make threats now with no consequences....

government threatens all the time without consequences, but i'm sure you're ok with that because you believe government is your master
 
Way to move that bar, Flash.
Fallacy fallacy.
You've been calling me violent for making no threats at all.
Lie. You HAVE been making threats. You want to start a civil war. So far you have no been violent, since you are still here. You haven't killed yourself yet by being stupid.
Yet you don't think threatening someone is violence?
No. It isn't. Redefinition fallacy (violence<->threat).
 
so your position is that if they have no faith in the political system, then you won't place any faith in their position or argument????????

Exactly.

Yup.

If they don't want to participate in the democratic process, then there is no reason to treat them fairly at all.

You've made it clear you won't accept the results of any election you lose; so since you won't act in good faith, what the fuck are we even doing here?
 
So...what did Flash do here?

First, Flash denied that threats are violence, and that there's such a thing as a peaceful threat.

Then, Flash tried to argue that the threats were just made in jest ("I was just joking" post-hoc defense). So I guess that means the threat wasn't peaceful.

So Flash was trying to argue that the threats weren't credible and therefore, were peaceful threats. Yes, that is Flash's argument now...the Nazis made peaceful threats that Flash then goes on to quote the article as saying were credible enough that the "Oregon State Police has recommended that the Capitol be closed tomorrow due to a possible militia threat."

So Flash, your argument here just contradicted itself.

In trying to downplay the significance and severity of the threat Conservatives made, you ended up proving the threat was credible when you quoted the article saying just that.

So your argument now is that Nazis were peacefully threatening Democrats, but it's OK because they were just joking, even though police found the threat credible.

Redefinition fallacy (threat<->violence).
 
The part of the story you are deliberately ignoring:

"A spokesperson for the state Senate president told The Associated Press on Friday that the "Oregon State Police has recommended that the Capitol be closed tomorrow due to a possible militia threat."

I've never heard of a peaceful threat before. Sounds like a Nazi goalpost shift that gullible bothsiderists like Flash fall for, predictably.

Whut?? How can they tell him on Friday?? Today is Thursday!
You're an idiot.
 
I remember hearing very similar arguments from conservatives after the PATRIOT ACT was passed. are you a closet conservative?

You said the bill violates your individual rights.

I linked the bill here for you, asking you to quote and cite the part of the bill you say does that. Then we can have a debate about your interpretation of the legal language written in black and white.

You refuse to do that work, which means you don't know shit about this bill, and are lazily relying on what other people say because you don't do any thinking for yourself.
 
Flash...the state is 60/40...that's reflected accurately in the representation in the state legislature.

You can't argue that's gerrymandered when the representation closely hews to vote totals.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.
 
OK, so how is measuring something a violation of your rights?
You can't measure it. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric CO2 concentration, or the global sea level.
It is unconstitutional to pass a bill that is vague and unenforceable.
You also didn't cite where in the bill it says your rights are violated...and I even linked the bill to you so you could do that.
Lie.
You couldn't do that because the bill doesn't do that.
Lie.
 
Back
Top