Again, you are projecting the level of generalization and bad faith that you are using against me as if I'm using it against you.

Dude, Kienan has been 100% reasonable in this exchange. I believe that he believes everything as he wrote it, it's clearly laid out, and the logic is sound if you accept his premises (i.e. political organizations are perfectly capable of killing to send a message, because they're all basically criminal organizations, and AIPAC has a clear motive to send a message at a time when people are getting fed up with Israel's clear influence over US politics).

You don't even attempt to argue against that, instead you go 10 comments deep moving the goalposts all over the fucking field in an attempt to ignore it so that you can call people Nazis.

I guess since nobody in AOC's immediate family has died, it's crazy to even think that AIPAC could be behind another potential death. QED.

Again, you are projecting the level of generalization and bad faith that you are using against me as if I'm using it against you.

Where have I been bad faith?

I didn't say that your quotes are wrong. I just know that people inevitably claim "you're not responding to my arguments, you know your losing the argument", as you did, when they notice I'm not quoting them. I'm just saying I find it to be unhelpful.

Alright, fair enough. And, for the record, I'm not even trying to prove a point, being like 'see, I can admit when I'm wrong,' or something. No, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying in this case, and you're correct; picking apart text like I sometimes do - and am currently doing - can lead to certain conclusions. That wasn't my intent. Again, it's just how I structure my thoughts. But I do apologize, it wasn't my intent, and I can see how such nitpicky quotations could come across as overly aggressive.

I know you specified political hit-lists. That is my point. A political hit-list is a lot different from a real hit-list. We can't assume that someone with a political hit-list is interested in actual hits.

We can't conclude or assume anything. But, at the very least, the possibility is there that when political methodology fails, groups may be tempted to take more physical approaches. Again, not even saying it happened in this case, but there is motive, and the possibility.

You basically didn't say anything at all besides a kind of generic dismissal.

I honestly don't quite get what you're saying. Ironically, this would be a good time to quote what you're talking about, that I said. Feel free to clarify though.

That is why demanding I not imply anything from your comments is a problem.

I don't think I ever demanded anything. I disagreed with numerous things you were implying about me. You're allowed to, and I'm allowed to disagree. Go wild. Outright call me a Nazi if you feel like it; you're allowed to do that.

And no, I don't smear everyone as socialist/communist/progressive because those are all different things.

You mentioned all of those things, and labeled various people, some of those things, where I personally don't believe they fit. Again, you're allowed to do that. I just didn't agree.

You haven't been arguing in good faith, because you've assumed, from the outset, that I've been arguing in bad faith.

I'm allowed to assume things. I don't think I've treated you unfairly. I've said my part, you've said yours. I've listened to you. I hope you've listened to me. That's just how this goes. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I've been operating in bad faith.

It takes more than just thinking your opponent is a little shifty to be considered "bad faith argument," in my opinion. I could think you're a lying bastard, and still argue in good faith. Good or bad faith is just how I conduct myself; it has nothing to do with who I think my opponent is.

If I'm lying, being disingenuous, sneaky, or otherwise not admitting it if I realize I'm wrong, I'd say that's bad faith. If I argue my position, and what I believe to be correct...it doesn't matter whether I think you're good faith, bad faith, smart, retarded, good, or evil. It doesn't even matter if I'm correct or incorrect. As long as I'm not being a bastard myself, I can argue in good faith.

Despite the fact that I immediately backed down from saying that you claimed that international jewry assassinated Massie's wife. This is because I believe you and acted accordingly.

Did you? Well, if so, I appreciate that. Because I don't think the internationally Jewry killed Massie's wife. I do think there's a strong possibility Massie's wife was murdered, given the timing, and there were likely some Jews involved considering the current players but, no, I do not believe it was The Jews as a whole. Ze Jews did not kill Rhonda Massie.

I didn't ask you once about your initial claim because your initial claim was clear and unequivocal; but you backed down from it, so there's nothing to really argue about except the argument.

My initial claim:

"I'm beyond infuriated. Massie is just about the only decent human in that shithole, and they (probably) just killed his wife."

I stand by that. One hundred percent. It's tragic. Thomas Massie is a good dude, and I do think this was, probably, a hit.

If you're talking about my second statement:

"They've done it before, they did it again, and they'll keep doing it."

I stand by that too. They have done it before, they have done it again, and they will keep doing it. I haven't backed down from shit.