Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[The Big Dog]

It’s not a sensible argument when the bomber put time/effort to make something that could actually explode and build a timer and detonator that could actually trigger and explosion. “maybe they don’t properly wire up the detonator and were building it just for show” is a completely nonsensical argument in this context.

It appears they bought the cheapest clock they could find on the inetrnets, one that did not even have an alarm function, but tell us more!

 

[Stacko]

Oh don't get me wrong that wasn't a zing, it does perfectly encapsulate what we're seeing.

The fact that it's from an episode skewering "law and order" Republicans adds some icing to the cake.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah. Reposting a link to an anonymous source as being utterly authoritative.
Said unknown source also based entire argument on incredulity that a terrorist would ever make a less than ideal device.

Are you arguing for the left? Anyone reading your posts would think so.

Did they change the definition of anonymous, again?

 

[Belz...]

Are you arguing for the left? Anyone reading your posts would think so.

If that's performance art of the ultimate right-winger, I'll buy Slings a beer some day.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It appears they bought the cheapest clock they could find on the inetrnets, one that did not even have an alarm function, but tell us more!

But then why use something that is actually flammable to fill it with?

 

[theprestige]

You're right... nobody AT THIS TIME is saying "no harm no foul".

I suspect people are just used to expecting the worst from Trump and his supporters... that they recognize that while they may not be saying "no harm no foul" now, the constant attempts at belittling the events makes people wary that such "no harm no foul" claims will come in the future.

Darat, JoeMorgue, and AnonyMoose expressing concerns about possible future would be silly enough. Depending on how they approached it, they might even run afoul of the rule against off-topic posts. But they're not talking about future possibilities. They're talking about past facts. Facts that aren't actually facts at all. That's a different problem than mere silliness.

 

[The Big Dog]

But then why use something that is actually flammable to fill it with?

what did they fill it with?

 

[Stacko]

Bill O'Reilly is piloting the they deserved it argument.

 

[dudalb]

Your optimism is completely unfounded.

I know, but saying it makes me feel better.

 

[BobTheCoward]

what did they fill it with?

Shrapnel seems to be a reoccurring report.

 

[dudalb]

On the lighter side, the Comedians are going to have a field day with the De Niro threat......given how many tough guys with great scenes Bobby D has played.

 

[theprestige]

I think you're using an extremely charitable reading of Slings and Arrow's argument.

He is saying that these devices were not ever dangerous, that the Dems are making too much of it because like everything else he lists, it is fake and/or the fault of the Dems.

You are right in that it is not exactly 'no harm, no foul', it is substantially worse in 'Dem's harm, Dem's foul, Dem's always fake'.

I say skip all the between steps of 'they weren't real bombs, and if they were real bombs they weren't going to go off, and if there were intended to go off it was a libtard, and if it was a right-winger then it wasn't a Trump supporter, and if it was a Trump supporter they didn't do it because they supported Trump,' and get right to the 'it's the media/opposition/libtard's fault and they deserved it' that Trump is getting at already.

Here's the way this reads to me:

You're accusing Trump of intending to make an argument he hasn't actually made yet. On the basis of this accusation, you're interpreting SnA's argument to mean the argument you think Trump intends to make. On the basis of your interpretation, you're accusing SnA of making Trump's intended argument. But when pressed for evidence to support your accusation against SnA, you can't actually produce the argument you're accusing him of making. Rather, all you can produce is a different argument and a chewing-gum-and-baling-wire edifice of inference and speculation that you hope will stand in place of the evidence you need.

 

[dudalb]

I now say the chances of the US descending in a cycle of political violence that will be a de facto sedond Civil War is now above 50%,

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bill O'Reilly is piloting the they deserved it argument.

Read it. How is it implying they deserved it?

 

[theprestige]

People think hiding behind the "That's not exactly what I said" routine works, don't they?

Newsflash: People are allowed to comment on your obvious subtext.

The obvious subtext of your practice of not quoting anyone is that you can't actually cite anything that supports your claims.

 

[The Big Dog]

Shrapnel seems to be a reoccurring report.

Shrapnel is not flammable...

/In fact it is inflammable.*

*That was a joke

 

[BobTheCoward]

Shrapnel is not flammable...

/In fact it is inflammable.*

*That was a joke

I misstated. I meant pipe bomb innards generally.

 

[uke2se]

I now say the chances of the US descending in a cycle of political violence that will be a de facto sedond Civil War is now above 50%,

I wouldn't put a percentage chance on that happening, but things are getting worse.

Not long ago, a situation like this would bring widespread condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum. There would be a couple of trolls and maybe a whackjob or two, but mostly everyone would be on board with sending bombs to political opponents being a bad thing.

Instead of that we see nothing but conspiracy theories and victim blaming from one side.

 

[theprestige]

Yes a pipe bomb that doesn't go off is the same thing as a can of gasoline.

Nobody is this thick.

You might find this amusing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StoriesAboutKevin/

 

[Ziggurat]

*That was a joke

Simpsons did it.