DFT Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: I don’t see any evidence of Rule #2 compliance there. Thank you in advance for your anticipated Rule #2 cooperation. I gotta have me my boats and hoax! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 9, 2020 Author Share Posted September 9, 2020 I wonder why Trump hasn't sued the author and The Atlantic, yet. This guy would sue a cow for letting out a moo, but nothing in this case. Odd, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 45 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. It’s a “trump/pro-lie/anti-rule of law” crowd” and the “rule of law/pro-truth” crowd. A stark, or black-and-white, or binary divide, if you will. Hoax. I didn’t make a Gladiator reference yet. The “sword” and “shield” dichotomy pre-existed Gladiator in the law. But Gladiator is a good movie. Strength and honor! On that we agree. I particularly enjoyed Commodus being sent to his maker, though I thought his sister's speech was a little smarmy given that she preached strength and honor in the Gladiator pit. On the other hand, she was pretty nice looking so I got past it rather quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 5 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Apparently you haven't heard of it. It was the scandal in which anonymous sourcing supported reporting that took down a crooked, deceitful President. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-defends-atlantic-editor-almost-all-200-of-our-stories-about-watergate-were-based-on-anonymous-sourcing It's almost as if history is trying to repeat itself! Now we're using a single event from 50 years ago to excuse what's been happening to journalism in the last 4 years? BTW, what did POTUS and Veep know, and when did they instruct it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 REMINDER: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 15 minutes ago, B-Man said: REMINDER: John Kelly denied a part of the story? He was, after all, you know, there with Trump at Arlington. So it would be pretty easy for him to deny if that part of the story is false. But he hasn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 15 hours ago, BullBuchanan said: And yet the sources were confirmed by Fox and CNN. Who else would have to confirm the information before you'd agree? Is Breitbart the bar, or would they just be a bunch of libtards then? One of the easiest way to spot someone unable to think for themselves is to wait for them to explain how anonymous sources can absolutely confirm anonymous sources. Take that plan to court one day. Explain to the judge that three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf believe you are innocent of your charges, and you have another anonymous person who refuses to show up to court on your behalf to confirm the three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf. I rest my case, your honor! You want me to believe anonymous sources? Make their names public and have them explain their details; where they were, who they were with, and specifically when it happened. We know the story is a hoax because those details keep getting corrected and the sources are STILL anonymous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: John Kelly denied a part of the story? He was, after all, you know, there with Trump at Arlington. So it would be pretty easy for him to deny if that part of the story is false. But he hasn’t. Nor has he confirmed. But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: One of the easiest way to spot someone unable to think for themselves is to wait for them to explain how anonymous sources can absolutely confirm anonymous sources. Take that plan to court one day. Explain to the judge that three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf believe you are innocent of your charges, and you have another anonymous person who refuses to show up to court on your behalf to confirm the three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf. I rest my case, your honor! You want me to believe anonymous sources? Make their names public and have them explain their details; where they were, who they were with, and specifically when it happened. We know the story is a hoax because those details keep getting corrected and the sources are STILL anonymous. By that logic we should all ignore you because you’re anonymous here. I mean, we probably should ignore you anyway given the absurdity of some of the things you say. But your anonymity alone might do the trick and allow us to avoid reading your posts. 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Nor has he confirmed. But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias. Hmmm . . . So, by not confirming, the allows the story to spread. But he could simply deny, and therefore squelch the story (assuming it is false). Seems to me that speaking the truth in this instance is to, among other things, stay silent. Which is exactly what he has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: By that logic we should all ignore you because you’re anonymous here. I mean, we probably should ignore you anyway given the absurdity of some of the things you say. But your anonymity alone might do the trick and allow us to avoid reading your posts. Hmmm . . . So, by not confirming, the allows the story to spread. But he could simply deny, and therefore squelch the story (assuming it is false). Seems to me that speaking the truth in this instance is to, among other things, stay silent. Which is exactly what he has done. Hoax! No proof in anything you’ve just stated. “Seems to me” is not a good way to show your work that your statement is fact-based. I award you no points (style nor substance). Words matter. back to the loch with you, Nessie... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, DFT said: Hoax! No proof in anything you’ve just stated. “Seems to me” is not a good way to show your work that your statement is fact-based. I award you no points (style nor substance). Words matter. back to the loch with you, Nessie... Hmmm . . . How does one support an opinion such as the one I expressed? I’m going to have to Rule #2 your contention that I could have supported my contention with Rule #2 facts. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: Hmmm . . . How does one support an opinion such as the one I expressed? I’m going to have to Rule #2 your contention that I could have supported my contention with Rule #2 facts. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Fake news! asking your audience for clarity on how to follow the set of rules you’re telling others to follow voids your contention beyond the needed and/ or necessary date of your contentions inception, most notably because only members of Antifa would still be reading at this point. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, DFT said: Fake news! asking your audience for clarity on how to follow the set of rules you’re telling others to follow voids your contention beyond the needed and/ or necessary date of your contentions inception, most notably because only members of Antifa would still be reading at this point. yep All I got out of that was your inability to comply with Rule #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: All I got out of that was your inability to comply with Rule #2. That’s unfortunate. That’s not where you want to be when Jesus comes back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 1 minute ago, DFT said: That’s unfortunate. That’s not where you want to be when Jesus comes back... When is Jesus coming back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 1 hour ago, DFT said: I gotta have me my boats and hoax! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: When is Jesus coming back? Soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, DFT said: Soon Got a ballpark time? I want to get Him some Trump gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 22 minutes ago, B-Man said: Nor has he confirmed. But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias. And which is more likely: a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is false keeping his mouth shut allowing the story to fester and therefore hurt 45 in the eyes of low capacity for logic voters; or a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is true keeping his mouth shut preventing the story from gaining momentum and therefore hurting 45 moreso? Why ever might General Kelly want to sit this one out? Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 4 minutes ago, Taro T said: And which is more likely: a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is false keeping his mouth shut allowing the story to fester and therefore hurt 45 in the eyes of low capacity for logic voters; or a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is true keeping his mouth shut preventing the story from gaining momentum and therefore hurting 45 moreso? Why ever might General Kelly want to sit this one out? Hmmmm... So you think Kelly is in on the “fix”? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts