LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: LSHEAB is trying to take something totally out of context to prove a point with the posting of that video with "Hot Ainsley" front and center. What am I taking out of context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, Rob's House said: The best part of any Tweet about Eric Ciaramella (the leaker/coconspirator popularly referred to as "the whistleblower") is the histrionic hacks that inevitably accuse the poster of putting his life in danger. Hypocrisy aside, no one with an IQ above room temperature could actually think that. Anyone who cares enough to pay attention has known his name for months. The theory must be that one of these crazed, rabid Trump supporters, that we hear so much about but rarely, if ever, see, feels so strongly about this that he'd take the guy out, but hasn't followed the story at all. It's a pretty stupid theory. I get your point and to an extent, I agree that most zealots know by now. Why keep repeating it then and trying to get it more publicity ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: What am I taking out of context? He said "if" and it appears that you are trying to make the case that he was calling it as fact. That's what happens when you simply just post a video or some kind of another person's work without comment of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: He said "if" and it appears that you are trying to make the case that he was calling it as fact. That's what happens when you simply just post a video or some kind of another person's work without comment of your own. Nah. I think you're missing the point. He indeed said if and that particular "if" is now all but conceded; except, of course, among the fringiest of the fringe. Maybe Lamar Alexander is a RINO around these parts, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his press release. This does not meet the standards for an impeachable offense, so let the voter's decide. But it very much fits the pattern; "If he did this, it would be awful" culminating with "so what"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Can you comprehend that my comparison was not about public figure vs private individual? The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef. Period. Before your stroke, let me state that I realize that public figures have less expectations of privacy What is your purpose of ensuring the guy's identity is pushed further into the light, allowing that is not necessary in order to push for any investigation? 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? 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. 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. your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob. there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Standards have eroded. Check. Clinton earned his perjury charge. Check. I was never “aghast” at lying, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t think it was a normal for a politician to lie, so while I get what you’re trying to say on the higher standard issue, I think it’s a crock just as I think witnesses in thus impeachment will or could lead to some baseline of understanding amongst our political parties. I have no special truth-o-meter, but I do have the ability to reason. If you apply Bob’s Deluxe Less-Lie-Spectrometer to politicians, that’s great, but simply know that I think that argument is absurd. Your comments on Trump and Kelly Ann Conway are hyperbolic, but these issues tend to cause emotional declarations to be made, but as I said before...how cute it is you think your guys are less liarly than the people I support. What is this spectrometer of which you speak? Don't recall that. You aren't the only one that views news from multiple sources and decides on the likely truth. Others do that too. The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar, while I am much more skeptical of Trump's tales. You are willing to believe that when under pressure to protect himself, he tells the truth. That is not logical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Nah. I think you're missing the point. He indeed said if and that particular "if" is now all but conceded; except, of course, among the fringiest of the fringe. Maybe Lamar Alexander is a RINO around these parts, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his press release. This does not meet the standards for an impeachable offense, so let the voter's decide. But it very much fits the pattern; "If he did this, it would be awful" culminating with "so what"? 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 22 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. your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob. there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob. 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 Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Too. Much. Orange! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts