Another 'peaceful' ambush of ICE agents. One agent shot by radical leftwing lunatics trying to stop the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

To be clear, the phrase "painting all the left..." has no connection to Jordan Peterson and no, I'm not doing that very thing.
As for your trite maxim, I don't recognize that one. You must be thinking about a different one.
You are allegedly on the right so no need for you to call it out. Yssup certainly didn't call it out earlier. But I'm not seeing any major Dem politicians distancing themselves from it, which is something I'm sure all the left leaning posters here would be screaming for if it was a right wing extremist attack. No? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

My confusion over your posts continues. There are at least 3 ambiguities that I cannot parse. Let's try to zero in on one point, maybe include a second.

You say you are “not seeing” Dem politicians distancing themselves from it. From what exactly? These violent acts? If that is your point, then that is where my trite maxim comes in. When you say something like that, the implied corollary is that this means they must support it. But this “absence of a negative” is not “evidence of a positive.” Just because one does not speak out against it does not mean they support it.

And then to add that you are sure that “all the left leaning posters here would be screaming for it” if it was a right-wing attack...well….that is painting all with the same brush. Sorry. And it is not accurate, objective or justified.

I know that there are societal and political pressures for people to make these kinds of statements of opposition or support. Much of the time it is just self-serving, insincere posturing. But often it is because they know that they are “expected” to…. that they will pay dearly if they don’t go on record saying that they are pissed off by the things everyone expects them to be… that their enemies will take advantage of it and use it against them if they do not. It is a sad commentary on how petty and vindictive we have become.

Who besides you are accusing Democrat leadership? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

.
I'm still not sure he is. Seems to be...kinda. Rarely makes it clear. At least to me.

.

Where did you get this story bb? Seems like something you found on one of them “websites.” How do you know that this was done by “radical left wing lunatics?”

The shooting did seem to be orchestrated, but the story you posted is an editorial take on a press conference, with a healthy side order of horse shit.

Shirley we don’t want masked, armored, heavily armed ICE agents in civvies to become targets. They need to be scary and make those horrible criminal families flee back across the Rio grande in fear.

And why is anybody surprised that they are viewed that way. Masked marauders marching through the streets with automatic weapons and unlimited authority? Why would anybody want to resist them peacefully?

That said, where did you find this report? I would ask if you made it up, it we all know that’s not possible.

Your trolling headlines, on the other hand, are all you. Who claimed the attack was a peaceful protest? Seems like ever since Jan 6, the definition of peaceful protest has climbed to the top of your list of trolling triggers.

If you can’t link, at least try to think before trolling the board, Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

wrong

Who besides you are accusing Democrat leadership? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

just the entire Demonrat party .. didn't you get the memo?



Democrats told to "get shot" for the anti-Trump resistance


https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/dem...lence-congress


Democratic base demands violent tactics to counter Trump’s agenda

https://san.com/media-miss/democrati...trumps-agenda/


Dem lawmakers say their voters are threatening 'blood' and 'violence' over inability to hinder Trump: report

Representatives describe pressure from base to get 'arrested intentionally' and embrace extreme tactics

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...r-trump-report


and the best for last ....


Democrats Have a Violence Problem

https://amac.us/newsline/society/dem...lence-problem/


anything else you'd like to add here?

Or a local CBS report.
http://https://www.cbsnews.com/texas...-ice-facility/

No editorializing in the article but the suspects had a flag saying "resist fascism" and "fight oligarchy". And fliers with stuff like "fight ICE terror with class war". Certainly doesn't sound like the sentiments of the MAGA crowd. I'd say left wing is a reasonable assertion and the fact that they lured ICE agents (or attempted to) in order to shoot them is pretty extreme, don't you think? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

correct

wrong


just the entire Demonrat party .. didn't you get the memo?

Democrats told to "get shot" for the anti-Trump resistance

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/dem...lence-congress

Democratic base demands violent tactics to counter Trump’s agenda

https://san.com/media-miss/democrati...trumps-agenda/

Dem lawmakers say their voters are threatening 'blood' and 'violence' over inability to hinder Trump: report

Representatives describe pressure from base to get 'arrested intentionally' and embrace extreme tactics

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...r-trump-report

and the best for last ....

Democrats Have a Violence Problem

https://amac.us/newsline/society/dem...lence-problem/

anything else you'd like to add here?

correct Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So if political rhetoric is to blame for some nutbutter’s violence that must mean that Trump’s political rhetoric is also to blame for the violence as well. You can’t just have it one way. Political violence is a two way street. If it wasn’t then the right wing people on this forum wouldn’t be insisting that they were “winning” so much.

Trump can’t go a single day without doing or saying something that makes news and pisses somebody off.

Who besides you are accusing Democrat leadership? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not what I said.

So if political rhetoric is to blame for some nutbutter’s violence that must mean that Trump’s political rhetoric is also to blame for the violence as well. You can’t just have it one way. Political violence is a two way street. If it wasn’t then the right wing people on this forum wouldn’t be insisting that they were “winning” so much.

Trump can’t go a single day without doing or saying something that makes news and pisses somebody off. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

there is no violence by Trump. the left however rioted the moment he won in 2016 and Al "Grandpa Munster" Greene called for his impeachment ..... before he'd even been sworn in. there's nothing in Trump's so-called rhetoric that is grounds for this level of "resistance". it's called revolutionary socialist anarchy.

My confusion over your posts continues. There are at least 3 ambiguities that I cannot parse. Let's try to zero in on one point, maybe include a second.

You say you are “not seeing” Dem politicians distancing themselves from it. From what exactly? These violent acts? If that is your point, then that is where my trite maxim comes in. When you say something like that, the implied corollary is that this means they must support it. But this “absence of a negative” is not “evidence of a positive.” Just because one does not speak out against it does not mean they support it.

And then to add that you are sure that “all the left leaning posters here would be screaming for it” if it was a right-wing attack...well….that is painting all with the same brush. Sorry. And it is not accurate, objective or justified.

I know that there are societal and political pressures for people to make these kinds of statements of opposition or support. Much of the time it is just self-serving, insincere posturing. But often it is because they know that they are “expected” to…. that they will pay dearly if they don’t go on record saying that they are pissed off by the things everyone expects them to be… that their enemies will take advantage of it and use it against them if they do not. It is a sad commentary on how petty and vindictive we have become.

.
I'm still not sure he is. Seems to be...kinda. Rarely makes it clear. At least to me.

. Originally Posted by rooster

I think what you were reaching for is "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence", no?
But that doesn't work anyway. That's not how the game is played.

As TxDot pointed out, what's good for the goose...

From Google AI search for "did democrats condemn not condemning jan 6th as tacit approval",

"Democrats, particularly those serving in the Senate, have strongly condemned former President Trump's pardons of individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, especially those who assaulted Capitol Police officers. They view these pardons as a move that "erodes the rule of law and signals an acceptance of political violence". Additionally, some Democrats have directly linked the lack of strong condemnation or downplaying of the event by some Republicans to enabling further political violence and undermining democratic processes."

You should've left in the Peterson opinion. Freaking hilarious. A real "Do you still beat your wife?" moment.

I think what you were reaching for is "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence", no?
But that doesn't work anyway. That's not how the game is played.

As TxDot pointed out, what's good for the goose...

From Google AI search for "did democrats condemn not condemning jan 6th as tacit approval",

"Democrats, particularly those serving in the Senate, have strongly condemned former President Trump's pardons of individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, especially those who assaulted Capitol Police officers. They view these pardons as a move that "erodes the rule of law and signals an acceptance of political violence". Additionally, some Democrats have directly linked the lack of strong condemnation or downplaying of the event by some Republicans to enabling further political violence and undermining democratic processes."

You should've left in the Peterson opinion. Freaking hilarious. A real "Do you still beat your wife?" moment. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Well, the "absence of a negative" quote is really a simplistic version of the philosophical argument about the difficulties of proving a negative. There are several popular variations of it. Yours is one (most people think it came from Sagan, but it did not, it is far older). Mine is another that I thought kinda fit my point better. Maybe not, in retrospect.

I had to look up the phrase "do you still beat your wife moment." That is such a great name for that. I am aware of the concept, of course, but not that there was a good way to refer to it like that.

I see frequent attempts to use it here, and usually it is done very badly. And what I see even more frequently is...I am struggling to explain this adequately...so I'll use the language of the "wife" question...posters who don't ask if you still beat your wife, they just firmly state that you do since you did not say otherwise. But isn't that kind of the same idea as no "evidence" is not a "positive"?

There are several here who use that technique as their #1 weapon when they either cannot make a valid point or struggle to defend a poor one after they got called on it. It can be a shit ton of fun to flip it back on people.

The whole "did Democrats condemn" section....kinda makes my head hurt. It's late. It will be good to look at it fresh tomorrow. We will likely talk more....

The "wife" thing, though...whew. That's gonna keep me thinking for awhile. I am sure, in retrospect that I have been guilty of it. Maybe you have been calling me on that and I am too obtuse to have understood. But you just may have... given me something that will be... useful... oh, they have no idea...

Or... more likely... better ideas like this will make me realize that the vast majority of threads here are absolutely moronic, and there is no point debating these issues with people who refuse to think for themselves.

Then again... THIS conversation came out of one of the most idiotic threads of the past several days...

(please forgive me for posting the following small distractions while I attempt to avoid an infraction)

.

and the best for last ....


Democrats Have a Violence Problem

https://amac.us/newsline/society/dem...lence-problem/


anything else you'd like to add here? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yes. A request. That you please not add more of these redundant lists of things you find that support your foregone conclusions.

While I truncated it, I saved the "best" one. From an org called AMAC. Dude...really?

Here's a little bit of Wiki shit on them:

"AMAC describes itself as "vigorously conservative" and gained support from talk show host Glenn Beck...."

"In November 2020 AMAC CEO Rebecca Weber launched the Better For America Podcast.[14] The podcast is generally formatted as a discussion between Weber and a variety of conservative public figures about topics which are popular in right-wing and far-right circles. Episode topics include Great Replacement theory, Cultural Marxism, the US border crisis, "Gender Ideology", as well as current news and events."

Whatta surprise that such an objective, unbiased organization thinks that it's the Democrats with the violence problem.

.

As predicted, they are lining up to blame the Democrats for this:

Hawley Rebukes Dems Heated Rhetoric After Attacks on ICE

White House Warns Dems to Tone Down Ani-ICE Rhetoric

And...what I think is "the best"....

Anti-ICE Rhetoric May be Criminal, National Border Patrol President argues

The blame games are ridiculous.

I'm sure that they will continue here also.

.

You guys can waste your time going back and forth with each other about whatever, but just curious, does anyone even know the names of the people who did this? Until then, I am not sure how you can assume that they are a bunch of radical lefts when for all we know, they could have had family members and/or friends they believed were wrongfully detained at that facility in that border town... not saying that makes it right, I am just saying that seems more likely than the Bernie Sanders and AOC of the world playing Rambo to me. I guess time will tell the whole story soon enough.

You guys can waste your time going back and forth with each other about whatever, but just curious, does anyone even know the names of the people who did this? Until then, I am not sure how you can assume that they are a bunch of radical lefts when for all we know, they could have had family members and/or friends they believed were wrongfully detained at that facility in that border town... not saying that makes it right, I am just saying that seems more likely than the Bernie Sanders and AOC of the world playing Rambo to me. I guess time will tell the whole story soon enough. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Rational. We could use more of it. But its' much more fun to blame the Democrats. They are the party of violence. Everyone knows.

Texas Lt Gov Dan Patrick accuses Dems of Kill ICE Rhetoric

He completely misrepresents the issue, of course. But it got him on Newsmax!

.

He is a massive wanker, Patrick.

Such a wanker in fact that Abbott had to veto some of the circle jerking Patrick pushed out of the senate, like so much splooge.

If he’s on Newsmax it must be nirvana for Patrick. (Goeb, really). Was he praying?

Yes. A request. That you please not add more of these redundant lists of things you find that support your foregone conclusions.

While I truncated it, I saved the "best" one. From an org called AMAC. Dude...really?

Here's a little bit of Wiki shit on them:

"AMAC describes itself as "vigorously conservative" and gained support from talk show host Glenn Beck...."

"In November 2020 AMAC CEO Rebecca Weber launched the Better For America Podcast.[14] The podcast is generally formatted as a discussion between Weber and a variety of conservative public figures about topics which are popular in right-wing and far-right circles. Episode topics include Great Replacement theory, Cultural Marxism, the US border crisis, "Gender Ideology", as well as current news and events."

Whatta surprise that such an objective, unbiased organization thinks that it's the Democrats with the violence problem.

. Originally Posted by rooster

so your reason to ignore 3 other links claiming the same thing is what exactly?


bahhahaaaa

so your reason to ignore 3 other links claiming the same thing is what exactly? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Sorry you didn't understand. Let me be a little more direct. You had a conclusion that you wanted to support. You searched and found a bunch of crap that did that. While ignoring anything you found that did not. You then posted it here to support your conclusion as being the correct one.

It is tempting to post a pile of links supporting the "Flat Earth" theory to illustrate my point. But it is a waste of my time, it risks a citation, and you would likely just reply with some simple misdirection that continues to ignore logic.

I will save you some time. The correct answer is, of course..."if you say so."

.

They are just getting warmed up:

Attacks on ICE Agents Were Predictable Antifa-style Violence

A juicy quote:

"What happened in Texas wasn’t a random act of violence. It was the predictable, inevitable result of a years-long campaign of domestic terrorism waged by disillusioned, delusional, radicalized upper-middle-class Americans and enabled by prominent Democrats and their media allies. Some have been warning that the Radical Left’s unhinged, dehumanizing rhetoric would get people hurt. Now, it has."

As I have said, those who use violent acts like this to further their own agendas are a special kind of asshole.

.