XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   ... and say this.   
      
   On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:34:23 -0800,  Alan says...   
      
   > > Road?   
   > >   
   > > https://i.imgur.com/OC9smu9.mp4   
   > >   
   > > https://i.imgur.com/Lfbiqwg.jpeg   
   > >   
   > > See those people standing thar, stoopit? WHAT are they standing on?   
   >   
   > Were any of those people in the direction she intended to travel?   
      
   Sure they were.   
      
   How do YOU know where Good was "intending to travel"?   
      
   You don't.   
      
   I was making an illustrative point. YOU moved the goalposts, as usual, with   
   your fallacy of the specific.   
      
   She could have gone down the street MADE A 3-POINT TURN and came back at the   
   officers, them, having to draw the weapons again and shoot her again.   
      
   Them could have had no way to get where she wanted to go, by going "that" way,   
   so she could have turned around, needing to go back to her crime scene.   
      
   You don't know that couldn't have happened. I don't either and what counts   
   most: the officers didn't know, so they took out the threat, and yes, she was   
   a threat... in ANY law enforcement book.   
      
      
      
   Why I did:   
      
   The Tactical Logic:   
      
   In legal and tactical terms, I was illustrating "The Zone of Danger." Even if   
   people aren't in the direct line of travel at that second, a 4,000lb vehicle   
   is a 'dynamic threat."   
      
   I was arguing that the action taken (firing) was a preventative measure   
   against ANY foreseeable or unforeseeable tragedy, even if that tragedy hadn't   
   "lined up" yet.   
      
   What you, the troll did:   
      
   The Fallacy   
      
   You used a "Red Herring" or "Pedantic Narrowing." I LIKE that word, since I   
   use it with exact clarity when describing you.   
      
   Another:   
      
   Slothful Induction:   
      
   This is when you ignore the logical conclusion of a broad threat (a car out of   
   control) and insists on focusing only on tiny, irrelevant details (the current   
   GPS coordinates of the bystanders) to avoid the big picture.   
      
   The "Gotcha":   
      
   By you asking "Were they in her path?", you were trying to force me into a   
   "False Dilemma." You wanted to make it seem like if she wasn't aimed at a   
   person right that millisecond, she wasn't a threat.   
      
   (WRONG!)   
      
   "It's like saying a drunk person waving a loaded gun in a crowded room isn't a   
   threat because, at this exact moment, the barrel is pointed at a potted   
   plant."   
      
   I posted the photo to illustrate the Zone of Danger. A vehicle isn't a laser   
   beam; it's a steered weapon. To suggest a driver who just hit an agent is 'no   
   longer a threat' simply because they haven't turned the steering wheel toward   
   the next victim yet is the height of your slothfulness.   
      
   Your logic is like saying a loose tiger in a mall isn't a threat to the people   
   in the Food Court just because the tiger is currently at the Shoe Locker."   
      
   PLONK!   
      
   =============================================================================   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition   
      
   All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has   
   been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the   
   point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."   
      
   Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the   
   Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or   
   stages:   
      
   "In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The   
   president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were   
   all it took to change the world."   
      
   "The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's   
   vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of   
   hyperbole."   
      
   "As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from   
   reality."   
      
   The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk   
   opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump   
   announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would   
   suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS.   
   There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be   
   received positively by TDSers.   
      
   The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early   
   2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for late-   
   night comics and nothing more.   
      
   Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first   
   coined by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer back in 2003.   
   The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in   
   otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay -   
   the very existence of George W. Bush."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)