Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Logic said: Again with the anger. I'm starting to sense a common theme here. As far as answering any questions: Sure. As long as you play by the same rules. 3rdnlng just made a completely subjective statement, saying that "there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything". Did he provide any facts or explications? No, not a one. Meanwhile, this whole thread has to come to a stop unless I explain in detail each of 23 indictments. Get real. My original post included a factual assertion: The Mueller investigation has produced 23 indictments. That's a fact. It's not dishonest, it's not "fake news!!!!", it's a fact. As usual, you now bombard me with demands that I defend claims that I never even made (that all indictments were of American citizens, for instance). As soon as you defend and explain YOUR obviously subjective assertion, I'll defend and explain the FACT that I posted. So, you will neither answer the question (which we all know you can't, because there are exactly zero indictments relating to collusion), nor admit your intellectual dishonesty (which we all know you're being completely disingenuous and dishonest anyhow). Got it. It's amazing that you continue to wonder why people here have zero patience with your brand of dishonest stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Logic said: Again with the anger. I'm starting to sense a common theme here. As far as answering any questions: Sure. As long as you play by the same rules. 3rdnlng just made a completely subjective statement, saying that "there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything". Did he provide any facts or explications? No, not a one. Meanwhile, this whole thread has to come to a stop unless I explain in detail each of 23 indictments. Get real. My original post included a factual assertion: The Mueller investigation has produced 23 indictments. That's a fact. It's not dishonest, it's not "fake news!!!!", it's a fact. As usual, you now bombard me with demands that I defend claims that I never even made (that all indictments were of American citizens, for instance). As soon as you defend and explain YOUR obviously subjective assertion, I'll defend and explain the FACT that I posted. Prepare to feel the wrath of the cult down here in BIG BAD PPP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Keep watching, you'll get that answer soon. Soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: So, you will neither answer the question (which we all know you can't, because there are exactly zero indictments relating to collusion), nor admit your intellectual dishonesty (which we all know you're being completely disingenuous and dishonest anyhow). Got it. It's amazing that you continue to wonder why people here have zero patience with your brand of dishonest stupidity. I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is not so good. I never stated that the indictments were related to collusion. Go find where I said that. I simply said there have BEEN indictments. There have. I'm not going to defend statements I didn't make. As to "intellectual dishonesty", I shan't respond, since it's a baseless insult. As I stated before: Having a different opinion than you does not make someone else "intellectually dishonest". If you want to provide any substance whatsoever, I'm here. If you want to continue to call names, make accusations, and generally act like a child, I'm over it. Have a lovely day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunesmith Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Koko78 said: So, you will neither answer the question (which we all know you can't, because there are exactly zero indictments relating to collusion Off the top of my head, isn't the Richard Pinedo indictment/plea deal directly related to Russian Collusion? To my understanding, he was selling bank account numbers that were created with stolen IDs, that were used to pay for Russian propaganda efforts in the election. Edited May 12, 2018 by Fortunesmith clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: Off the top of my head, isn't the Richard Pinedo indictment/plea deal directly related to Russian Collusion? To my understanding, he was selling bank account numbers that were created with stolen IDs, that were used to pay for Russian propaganda efforts in the election. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/richard-pinedo-guilty-plea/index.html Well, that took care of 14 of the 23 indictments. None of them for the Trump campaign colluding with Russia though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Was just thinking that maybe Rudy has been working behind the scenes. Wasn't he the prosecuter that help bring the mob down in NYC? He's working to help set up the case agains the Clinton mob organization (Clinton foundation. DNC, and the swamp). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Logic said: I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is not so good. I never stated that the indictments were related to collusion. Go find where I said that. I simply said there have BEEN indictments. There have. I'm not going to defend statements I didn't make. Oh, we're playing this game now. That's fine. Military deaths under Obama: ~2,500 Military deaths under Trump: ~33 I'm clearly not saying anything about how much of a dangerous warmonger Obama was by these out-of-context numbers. 4 minutes ago, Wacka said: Was just thinking that maybe Rudy has been working behind the scenes. Wasn't he the prosecuter that help bring the mob down in NYC? He's working to help set up the case agains the Clinton mob organization (Clinton foundation. DNC, and the swamp). He was, and he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Logic said: I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is not so good. I never stated that the indictments were related to collusion. Go find where I said that. I simply said there have BEEN indictments. There have. I'm not going to defend statements I didn't make. As to "intellectual dishonesty", I shan't respond, since it's a baseless insult. As I stated before: Having a different opinion than you does not make someone else "intellectually dishonest". If you want to provide any substance whatsoever, I'm here. If you want to continue to call names, make accusations, and generally act like a child, I'm over it. Have a lovely day! Then defend your innuendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Logic said: Boy, you sure are quick to anger. I posted a completely non-personal quote that was, itself, an opinion expressed by someone else originally. Your response? To call me a "mouth breathing son of a B word". I'd suggest you seek out psychiatric analysis or spiritual practice of some sort to deal with that anger. Lol. I'm not angry. If I was angry I'd say nice things. I just talk like a !@#$ whose mouth has a flatulence problem regurgitating it's own spew. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Oh, we're playing this game now. That's fine. Military deaths under Obama: ~2,500 Military deaths under Trump: ~33 I'm clearly not saying anything about how much of a dangerous warmonger Obama was by these out-of-context numbers. He was, and he is. Oh for christ's sake. Nice pivot. Like I said, if you have anything of substance, let's hear it. I'm done with this silliness otherwise. 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Then defend your innuendo. You two are quite the pair. Tiberius is right. Just keep demanding explanations and explications whilst not providing any yourself when you post obviously biased statements and subjective opinions. If you two didn't like my original post, you've done nothing whatsoever to refute it with substance, reasonable discourse, or anything other than some namecalling and getting stuck in a "we want you to explain every single indictment, point by point!" loop. You want me to "defend my innuendo"? I think the original statement was pretty clear: The GOP -- specifically with regard to the way they've handled and reacted to the three above mentioned investigations -- is displaying blatant hypocrisy. Not sure what else you want me to say. That subjective opinion is no less valid or "intellectually honest" than your statement about the "crooked dem administration!!!". Now, since you keep demanding that I explain things, I have one I'd like YOU to explain: What about my original post was factually incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Someone wasted five minutes typing that to defend Tibs? do you $$$ to pisssssss away that recklessly as well????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, Logic said: Oh for christ's sake. Nice pivot. Like I said, if you have anything of substance, let's hear it. I'm done with this silliness otherwise. You two are quite the pair. Tiberius is right. Just keep demanding explanations and explications whilst not providing any yourself when you post obviously biased statements and subjective opinions. If you two didn't like my original post, you've done nothing whatsoever to refute it with substance, reasonable discourse, or anything other than some namecalling and getting stuck in a "we want you to explain every single indictment, point by point!" loop. You want me to "defend my innuendo"? I think the original statement was pretty clear: The GOP -- specifically with regard to the way they've handled and reacted to the three above mentioned investigations -- is displaying blatant hypocrisy. Not sure what else you want me to say. That subjective opinion is no less valid or "intellectually honest" than your statement about the "crooked dem administration!!!". Now, since you keep demanding that I explain things, I have one I'd like YOU to explain: What about my original post was factually incorrect? This was your original post: Like Dana Gould said today: The Benghazi Investigation 4 years 0 indictments Clinton email investigation 2 years 0 indictments Russian collusion investigation 14 months 23 indictments "Clearly there’s nothing there. Let’s wrap it up!” I objected to your characterization that there were 23 RUSSIAN COLLUSION indictments. I knew that was false and asked you to clarify it. You put on a dog and pony show and refused to support your pronouncement. You pull the sameshit whenever you visit here. You deserve gator as your bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 16 hours ago, Logic said: Like Dana Gould said today: The Benghazi Investigation 4 years 0 indictments Clinton email investigation 2 years 0 indictments Russian collusion investigation 14 months 23 indictments "Clearly there’s nothing there. Let’s wrap it up!” I'll take a flyer on guessing whether you'll man up and return to this thread after Sessions, Horowitz, et al are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 24 minutes ago, Logic said: Now, since you keep demanding that I explain things, I have one I'd like YOU to explain: What about my original post was factually incorrect? Factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest are completely different things, you disingenuous asshat. Every time you're here, you go out of your way to be dishonest, then wonder why you're treated like a disingenuous asshat. Tell you what, answer the !@#$ing question you were posed FIRST. Then maybe one of us will give a schiff about answering yours. 2 minutes ago, GG said: I'll take a flyer on guessing whether you'll man up and return to this thread after Sessions, Horowitz, et al are done. He won't. He'll run away for a few months, then come back and pretend he wasn't a coward last time... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Do GG and Logic ever argue with each other on here? they show up at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Just now, row_33 said: Do GG and Logic ever argue with each other on here? they show up at the same time What's the matter, XXX getting to your head again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: This was your original post: Like Dana Gould said today: The Benghazi Investigation 4 years 0 indictments Clinton email investigation 2 years 0 indictments Russian collusion investigation 14 months 23 indictments "Clearly there’s nothing there. Let’s wrap it up!” I objected to your characterization that there were 23 RUSSIAN COLLUSION indictments. I knew that was false and asked you to clarify it. You put on a dog and pony show and refused to support your pronouncement. You pull the sameshit whenever you visit here. You deserve gator as your bud. Stating that the Russian collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments is not factually incorrect. 23 indictments DID result from said investigation. The fact that they are not all specifically for collusion does not change the fact the indictments happened as a result of the collusion investigation. It's semantics, sure, but that's the road you all seem to want me to go down. As for me putting on a "dog and pony show", are you kidding me? Refusing to defend claims I never made and objecting to the use of personal insults instead of discourse is a dog and pony show? Sure man, okay. 22 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest are completely different things, you disingenuous asshat. Every time you're here, you go out of your way to be dishonest, then wonder why you're treated like a disingenuous asshat. Tell you what, answer the !@#$ing question you were posed FIRST. Then maybe one of us will give a schiff about answering yours. He won't. He'll run away for a few months, then come back and pretend he wasn't a coward last time... again. Gosh, with such intelligent and mature discourse as repeatedly swearing at me, and calling me (so far): Intellectually dishonest, a disingenuous asshat, a coward, etc...why WOULDN'T I spend more time here? The REASON I only show up every few weeks is because the same 4 or 5 people tend to INSTANTLY remind me why I don't post here more often by name-calling and making ridiculous demands that are inconsistent with what you yourselves provide in terms of explication or elaboration. You act as if you all provide mature, thorough, unimpeachable political analysis at all times, when that is often FAR from the case. Different sets of standards seem to apply to anyone who has a minority opinion on these forums. The mere fact of my daring to question the GOP or Trump usually results in an onslaught of attacks on my character and, for some reason, my honesty. And I don't suppose I need to mention the obvious irony of GOP supporters daring to lob accusations of questionable character or dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Wacka said: Was just thinking that maybe Rudy has been working behind the scenes. Wasn't he the prosecuter that help bring the mob down in NYC? He's working to help set up the case agains the Clinton mob organization (Clinton foundation. DNC, and the swamp). This is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, GG said: I'll take a flyer on guessing whether you'll man up and return to this thread after Sessions, Horowitz, et al are done. I'll take a flyer on guessing whether ANY of the "Clinton mob conspiracy" Scooby gang will man up and return to this thread once the impeachment process begins. Edited May 12, 2018 by Logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts