Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) civil discourse 101 for the mentally challenged: poster makes an argument (post). subsequently, a different poster challenges said argument by addressing certain points of said argument made by the aforementioned poster. aforementioned poster then addresses contended aspects of the responding poster. whereby, once done, the aforementioned poster can then expand the argument. however, if the aforementioned poster does not address the contested arguments the subsequent poster makes, there exists a gap in the progression of the logical order of civil discourse. by omitting the rebuttal, the aforementioned poster is attempting to control the narrative, that is not how civil discourse works, nor should it. with liberals, controlling any discussion is paramount. it also includes many different tactics to 'allow' them to steer said discussion to fit into a certain narrative they wish to portray. of course, being brian addled often prevents one from understanding exactly what they are doing with regard. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 1
ALF Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 "Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors"
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Yeah, Ok. Good idea to avoid your posts then. Can do. Even though I just told that you make these broad hand waving dismissals and don't point out specific problems, you do the exact same thing in the next post. In addition, someday, look into your need to insult. Apparently the need is there. Insecure much? Moved goalposts, 1+1 very specific lol Ok, Foxx Out i pointed it out exactly. i even went back and retrieved the post to quote the portion i contested. but, you can't understand that because your brian is broken beyond repair. 1
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Except that you have bought into other people's interpretation of the transcript of that phone call. There are 500 words between "do us a favor" and any mention of the Bidens. On top of that Zelensky was the one who first brought up the Bidens. So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation." 1
snafu Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always. It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence. 3 1
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation." you've seen his exact words? please post a link, i would like to see them myself. TYIA
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, ALF said: "Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors" ...so now we base an attorney's litigation abilities based on what clients he has represented?.......I'm certain he knew all about Epstein, the facts about his scurrilous past that came out recently with his death?.....pretty sad and baseless indictment of his litigation and constitutional knowledge skills......SMH.......care to cite prominent lawyers whose clients who were found "guilty as charged"?.......same scurrilous ilk?.....hide your biases better.......
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, Foxx said: what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. How can you be so sure that I am not ? 2
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation." Ah, you might have just as well heard it from your cousin's girlfriends aunt. Don't post such stupidshit. I know you are capable of better stuff than that.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 22 minutes ago, ALF said: "Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors" What's your argument, here, "moderate independent?"
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, snafu said: Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always. It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence. Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues. I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so. Not that you should know that but that is the case. A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment. I thought he should have been convicted and removed. Didn't match up with the Dems then. Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) @Bob in Mich please read the included article. it may help with your, 'understanding' or lack thereof. https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1223657481441812480 i'm sure your 'selective' understanding will commit you to not believe the 'whistle blower' in the article though. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 4
snafu Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues. I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so. Not that you should know that but that is the case. A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment. I thought he should have been convicted and removed. Didn't match up then with the Dems then. The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S. Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass. 4
ALF Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: What's your argument, here, "moderate independent?" As far as I'm concerned Dershowitz and Epstein are scum.
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, snafu said: The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S. Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass. if the other two FISA's are found to have been deficient, the entire Mueller report is null and void. fruit of the poisoned tree. it will then call into question the entire #moderdaywatergate operation. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 2
sherpa Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment. I thought he should have been convicted and removed. We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was. 9
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 59 minutes ago, Foxx said: Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart. For no good reason I am still trying to understand this. I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him. That was my point From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference. I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger. If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base. It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up. You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 Just now, sherpa said: We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was. ,...asinine for Roberts to block disclosure .....whoa wait....Schiff said he had no idea who the whistle blower was.......who is the BIGGER gaffe?..........
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: For no good reason I am still trying to understand this. I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him. That was my point From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference. I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger. If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base. It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up. You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger. Bob, one last time... here is the last sentence of your post that i took contention with... "Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. " if you are claiming that you are making a point of, 'increasing danger' then you have a very poor way of wording what you are trying to say. your subsequent attempts were, in my opinion, weaksauce and didn't spell out very clearly your opposition to my contention. further, if we attempt to put your last sentence in greater context, the first sentence states thus: " No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her?" it seems readily apparent that even with the greater context included, you were plainly comparing apples to oranges. however, now that you have made it clear what was in your head and not necessarily on the board, while addressing my contention with a modicum of adequacy we can move on with common civil discourse. of which i believe was 'increased danger'. to wit, i did address that in what may have been my first post to you (may not be, but I did address it with you in one of my posts). that being, there is considerable question as to whether he is legally considered to be a 'whistle blower'. additionally, i stated that i did not believe him to be in any more danger than any of the other deep state coup plotters that have already been exposed. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx
Recommended Posts