By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 11 September 2019
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Ugh...

He isn't being blamed for things "the weather networks" said. He is being blamed for things he said.

From his mouth.

Which is his.

Mouth.

No matter how many awful, awful metaphors you pull out, you cannot distract from this fact. Trump is being criticized for the wrong things that he said. That is exactly how criticism is supposed to work.

Note: But yeah, we are supposed to move on from this subject. My earlier comment was about Trump's culpability generally, not about the weather incident specifically. I suggest you do the same.

What the fuck does this even attempt to mean?

Selective criticism, sure. Who's choosing?

It means what seems stupid to you, isn't necessarily stupid to others.

Yes, humans get to choose when they criticize something. Like, what?

By all means, feel free to rebut criticism whenever you feel like it, but it seems like most of your defenses have been just awful. Like, comparing Trump's comments to a restaurant review. That is bad. That is real bad. 

That is the problem with most defenses of Trump. They are often real bad. Like, you brought up the whole Russia Report not too long ago. You know, the report which outlined numerous examples of Obstruction of Justice and said a lot of things that look reaaal bad for the president. Defenses seem to either be "Obstruction of Justice is totally cool, guys", "Yeah, but what about something else" or "TOTALLY EXONERATED. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."

You can feel free to come to whatever opinion you desire, but it isn't some sort of conspiracy when other look at those bad arguments and go "Oh. That right there is a bad argument. Huh.". If your stupid-o-meter isn't going off from this shit almost every day than you should probably get that checked out because either it is busted, or you are part of the stupid problems.



Around the Network
tsogud on 11 September 2019
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

Where have you been? Have you had your eyes closed the entire time? Almost the entire political establishment are corrupted hacks save for a few. 45 is a corrupted hack, Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell obviously is, etc. it could go on.

You may need to research more on the report and what it actually says or maybe just read it yourself. Also you went back on what taking a long time means, first you said it meant he was cleared now you say it's a political strategy. If your opinion changed and it's the latter, I'd agree with that, I believe they should've got on with the proceedings way sooner.

So the corrupted hacks are going to bring justice to another corrupted hack? That's like saying I can't wait for that known murderer to kill that other known murderer.

Went back? Flip flopped? So he did collude with the Russians? Seems to me the only thing they are trying to go after him for is obstruction. Obstructing the case about collusion that never happened which he knew. That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do. Person A should've just took the ass kicking?

No. That's absolutely not what it's like. I suggest you learn more about the topic before you make an absolute statement about it. 45 is a corrupted hack and yet here you are throwing out facts in order to defend him and don't care that he's corrupted but somehow you care when it's a democrat?? Seems inconsistent and biased. And if Nancy Pelosi had it her way I'm sure she wouldn't impeach but she's getting pressure from others, like AOC, to do so.

You can think whatever you like but don't be surprised when you get challenged for saying something so blatantly false.

Last edited by tsogud - on 11 September 2019

 

EricHiggin on 11 September 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Selective criticism, sure. Who's choosing?

It means what seems stupid to you, isn't necessarily stupid to others.

Yes, humans get to choose when they criticize something. Like, what?

By all means, feel free to rebut criticism whenever you feel like it, but it seems like most of your defenses have been just awful. Like, comparing Trump's comments to a restaurant review. That is bad. That is real bad. 

That is the problem with most defenses of Trump. They are often real bad. Like, you brought up the whole Russia Report not too long ago. You know, the report which outlined numerous examples of Obstruction of Justice and said a lot of things that look reaaal bad for the president. Defenses seem to either be "Obstruction of Justice is totally cool, guys", "Yeah, but what about something else" or "TOTALLY EXONERATED. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."

You can feel free to come to whatever opinion you desire, but it isn't some sort of conspiracy when other look at those bad arguments and go "Oh. That right there is a bad argument. Huh.". If your stupid-o-meter isn't going off from this shit almost every day than you should probably get that checked out because either it is busted, or you are part of the stupid problems.

You mean like Dave Ruben? His "stupid-o-meter" went off years ago and now he finds himself siding with Trump or conservatives quite often, oddly enough. Is the meter malfunctioning? Has it been calibrated lately? Why are so many subscribing to his show?



EricHiggin on 11 September 2019
tsogud said:
EricHiggin said:

So the corrupted hacks are going to bring justice to another corrupted hack? That's like saying I can't wait for that known murderer to kill that other known murderer.

Went back? Flip flopped? So he did collude with the Russians? Seems to me the only thing they are trying to go after him for is obstruction. Obstructing the case about collusion that never happened which he knew. That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do. Person A should've just took the ass kicking?

No. That's absolutely not what it's like. I suggest you learn more about the topic before you make an absolute statement about it. 45 is a corrupted hack and yet here you are throwing out facts in order to defend him and don't care that he's corrupted but somehow you care when it's a democrat?? Seems inconsistent and biased. And if Nancy Pelosi had it her way I'm sure she wouldn't impeach but she's getting pressure from others, like AOC, to do so.

You can think whatever you like but don't be surprised when you get challenged for saying something so blatantly false.

When did I say I cared when it was a Dem?



EricHiggin on 11 September 2019
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

So the corrupted hacks are going to bring justice to another corrupted hack? That's like saying I can't wait for that known murderer to kill that other known murderer.

Went back? Flip flopped? So he did collude with the Russians? Seems to me the only thing they are trying to go after him for is obstruction. Obstructing the case about collusion that never happened which he knew. That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do. Person A should've just took the ass kicking?

You obviously didn't read the report or watch the Mueller testimony before Congress.  Do you really want me to bring out all 10 instances of obstruction of justice or his testimony on it?

You're obviously assuming based on lack of evidence. Is evidence important before making conclusions? Does a lack of evidence make things obvious?

Obstruction? When did Trump ever obstruct anything?



Around the Network
tsogud on 11 September 2019
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

No. That's absolutely not what it's like. I suggest you learn more about the topic before you make an absolute statement about it. 45 is a corrupted hack and yet here you are throwing out facts in order to defend him and don't care that he's corrupted but somehow you care when it's a democrat?? Seems inconsistent and biased. And if Nancy Pelosi had it her way I'm sure she wouldn't impeach but she's getting pressure from others, like AOC, to do so.

You can think whatever you like but don't be surprised when you get challenged for saying something so blatantly false.

When did I say I cared when it was a Dem?

You literally said how can the American people trust the corrupted hacks, you were referring to the establishment Dems but you didn't raise this concern about 45. I guess you don't care he's corrupted and don't want him to be brought to justice.



 

EricHiggin on 11 September 2019
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Went back? Flip flopped? So he did collude with the Russians? Seems to me the only thing they are trying to go after him for is obstruction. Obstructing the case about collusion that never happened which he knew. That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do. Person A should've just took the ass kicking?

>That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do.

What.  

An investigation of the facts is not an ass kicking.  The fact that you think there's an analogy between those two situations is....  I don't even know what that is.  

It'd be more like person A getting arrested for illegally trying to get person B fired because person A thinks that person B is going beat them up.  That would be a semi-accurate analogy using your terms.  

Ever seen a boxing match where all they ever do is talk smack for 730 rounds?

No it wouldn't. When person B has been hired to learn person A's every move, past and present, and then use that against person A if they can, which is what happened, that's what I'm talking about and what mine implies. You act as if Trump wasn't part of it in anyway and would have no need to worry. Two years of constant coverage of Trump plus (insert Russia and something bad here) wasn't just a mistake on their part.



EricHiggin on 12 September 2019
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

So the corrupted hacks are going to bring justice to another corrupted hack? That's like saying I can't wait for that known murderer to kill that other known murderer.

Went back? Flip flopped? So he did collude with the Russians? Seems to me the only thing they are trying to go after him for is obstruction. Obstructing the case about collusion that never happened which he knew. That's like attempting to send person A to jail for trying to stop person B from beating up person A, for something they thought person A did, but didn't do. Person A should've just took the ass kicking?

You obviously didn't read the report or watch the Mueller testimony before Congress.  Do you really want me to bring out all 10 instances of obstruction of justice or his testimony on it?

Above ^ READ CAREFULLY

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

You're obviously assuming based on lack of evidence. Is evidence important before making conclusions? Does a lack of evidence make things obvious?

Obstruction? When did Trump ever obstruct anything?

My god, man.  You just validated my post so completely that I really don't know how to thank you.

This is called on the fly 4D chess.

I clearly point out obstruction, numerous times, then you point out how I don't know anything, and how you're going to show me all the obstruction evidence about it, and I purposefully pretend to know nothing about obstruction, when it couldn't be more clear that I did, based on what I said immediately prior, and you take that as gospel that I don't know what I'm talking about because 'I can't remember and completely contradict what I said within the hour'.

The fact you bought that, considering I bring up things from that past all the time, and how important solid evidence is, tells me everything I need to know.

A good investigator, like Mueller... would have pointed out the contradiction and asked for an explanation, not simply written a conclusion, like... Mueller?

You're welcome btw.



EricHiggin on 12 September 2019
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:
  

Ever seen a boxing match where all they ever do is talk smack for 730 rounds?

No it wouldn't. When person B has been hired to learn person A's every move, past and present, and then use that against person A if they can, which is what happened, that's what I'm talking about and what mine implies. You act as if Trump wasn't part of it in anyway and would have no need to worry. Two years of constant coverage of Trump plus (insert Russia and something bad here) wasn't just a mistake on their part.

>Ever seen a boxing match where all they ever do is talk smack for 730 rounds?

This isn't a boxing match.  

>When person B has been hired to learn person A's every move, past and present, and then use that against person A if they can, which is what happened, that's what I'm talking about and what mine implies. 

Uh what.  Stop watching Fox News.  Stop reading Breitbart.  Stop reading r/conservative or whatever else you are reading.  

>Two years of constant coverage of Trump plus (insert Russia and something bad here) wasn't just a mistake on their part.

Who is "they"?  The Mueller investigation was shut tight.  They rarely put anything out to the media.  

Metaphors. Not for everyone.

Stop reading the WSJ? Times? CNN? MSNBC? FOX?

Shut tight. Rarely put anything out. > That's like, 'I always win, except for when I lose sometimes.'

And then there's leaky Comey, the former FBI director. Makes you feel safe doesn't it? Who taught Comey the ropes?



Bofferbrauer2 on 12 September 2019
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

Impeachment proceedings are complicated and the establishment Democrats are a bunch of corrupted hacks so it's going to take even longer. That doesn't mean he's cleared, that's a completely flawed conclusion you've come to based on a flawed chain of reasoning. Taking a long time doesn't equate to being cleared.

So the American people should put their faith and trust in those "corrupted hacks"?

Taking a long time in this case equates to either political strategy to align with the election campaign to try and stop Trumps possible re-election, or because they aren't going to bother but won't let it go because it somehow keeps the base wound up.

No, they shouldn't trust Trump and his cronies.

Oh, you meant somebody else? Then try not to use the very definition of the Trump administration instead...

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 12 September 2019

The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/