Winners only.

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Wasting your time on Rob. He’s a thesaurus without the benefit of intellect. Smart enough to spell the words but too shallow to spend the time to understand them.

Following the playbook, I see. You can’t support your argument so you make the choice of turning to insults.
Pretty transparent.

 

[SlugButter]

Following the playbook, I see. You can’t support your argument so you make the choice of turning to insults.
Pretty transparent.

What argument. I made an observation about your average level of intellect and inability to grasp complex situations by calling you a tyranothesaurus.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

What argument. I made an observation about your average level of intellect and inability to grasp complex situations by calling you a tyranothesaurus.

If you had put forth at least one cogent argument in our ongoing back-and-forth, I might give what you say a little credence. You debate so poorly that you have actually invalidated your own arguments with new arguments.

Keeping track of your own words is not a "complex situation", yet you can't do it. With that lack of ability, you're really not qualified to comment on the abilities of others.
And ironic that you reference me as a thesaurus. That's a collection of synonyms. A collection of information would be an encyclopedia. Even trying to insult me seems too complex for you...

And yes, people who try to change my fact-based opinion with their personal feelings/opinions/beliefs/faiths are probably wasting their time. For someone to change my mind, I need their argument to be very persuasive. "I FEEL the law is this" is not a great start when I can actually quote the text of the statute and the statute number.

 

[SlugButter]

Tyranothesaurus-a

If you had put forth at least one cogent argument in our ongoing back-and-forth, I might give what you say a little credence. You debate so poorly that you have actually invalidated your own arguments with new arguments.

Keeping track of your own words is not a "complex situation", yet you can't do it. With that lack of ability, you're really not qualified to comment on the abilities of others.
And ironic that you reference me as a thesaurus. That's a collection of synonyms. A collection of information would be an encyclopedia. Even trying to insult me seems too complex for you...

And yes, people who try to change my fact-based opinion with their personal feelings/opinions/beliefs/faiths are probably wasting their time. For someone to change my mind, I need their argument to be very persuasive. "I FEEL the law is this" is not a great start when I can actually quote the text of the statute and the statute number.

You made my point. I'm a liberal who is left of you on most things not Covid related. You can't see the forest past the trees. You read for the purpose of responding, not for the purpose of understanding. It's OK. Movements, causes and revolutions need people like you.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You can "fight like hell" peacefully. You want to read into his words, while ignoring words he actually said. I mean, the Summer of Love was "mostly peaceful", right? Double standards. Even the silly "leader" of the insurrection waering a buffalo hat is on video, inside the Capitol Building, saying that they need to remain peaceful. Or didn't you see that video?

Who said that d-bag was the leader of the silly mob that "wore hats and waved flags" while they "fought like hell" to prevent the electoral vote from taking place? If he was pleading for peaceful protest, why was he carrying a spear and why was he "charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds."? Those seem to be contrary situations. Maybe it's another "do as I say, not as I do" issue?
This link includes video of some of the "hat wearing and flag waving". The metal barricades must have been holding the flags they wanted to wave. The smoke must have been from heavy vaping by the "peaceful protesters": https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-hat-horns-capitol-riot-arrested/6609039002/

"I didn’t ignore the idea of powerful people taking illegal action at all. In fact, I discussed the idea of a hierarchy when it comes to “wrong” actions."

So explain this comment... "You consider what you call the lies of the left who were not in power, not the president, to be worse than the 20,000 documented lies a sitting President told his country."
You clearly said people "not in power". The dems controlled congress when multiples of them, including the speaker, propagated the Russian collusion lie. And when I pointed out powerful people lied to you, you did in fact ignore that point. And you'd clearly be happy to continue ignoring it if I didn't mention it again.

I said that if the law is broken, then something should be done about it. But you are thinking like a child if you believe all crimes are the same, and that the criminal has no relevance in how the crime is viewed. Guy robs a gas station of $500, gets 30 days in lockup. Guy embezzles $30 million, gets to pay back whatever he didn't spend on "personal belongings", 5 years probation with orders to behave. Notice a disparity there? Do you know about "club Fed" minimum-scurity prisons? it's where people who wipe out entire retirement accounts of hundreds of families get to go. They can actually walk out because security is so minimal. Crimes are not "equal", criminals are not treated equally. If you thinks that is not true, there is no helping you.

"The term insurrection has been used quite a bit by many people. I’m surprised you’ve never read it anywhere or heard it anywhere. Jan 6th fits the definition quote well."

So please tell me how claiming, for 4 years, that Trump was an illegitimate president, based on made up lies paid for by the democrats, wasn't an "insurrection". Tell me how trying to break down the front door of the Supreme Court building wasn't an insurrection. Tell me how prominent democrats urging more "protests" in the streets, that were in fact violent riots where many people died, wasn't an insurrection. Tell me how taking over several city blocks of Portland, declaring it an "autonomous state" outside U.S. jurisdiction in which armed civilians roamed the streets as a makeshift police force, wasn't an insurrection. Then preach to me about not knowing what that word means.

You're asking me to defend an argument that I never made. YOU brought up the Kavanugh protests. But if you want to talk facts, NONE of the protesters entered the courtroom illegally. They actually had tickets to be there. The ones who "stormed" the building were actually banging on the doors to make noise and disrupt. The ones who were inside legally were taken away in cuffs peacefully. No violence, no damage, no deaths. Similar situations, but also very different. Trying to disrupt a judge from being confirmed is quite different from an attempted coup of the presidency, in my opinion.
The definition of insurrection is: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
Making claims or lying is not a "violent uprising". The Kavanaugh situation did not turn violent. They do not fit the definition of an insurrection. They certianly do not fit the definition of an attempted coup.

Again, the left lied to us, for basically the entirety of Trump's administration, about him being legit elected, but you want to cry about an insurrection when he told his supporters to protest the election results "peacefully" until a more thorough investigation of the results was conducted. Win at any cost, even if that means ignoring the dozens of deaths the left created with their "mostly peaceful protests" their multi-year claim of illegitimacy with no real evidence, and even in one instance overrunning sovereign US soil and declaring it a new country, while complaining about a bunch of overzealous people who entered the capitol building and killed nobody. There was a lot of wrong doing on Jan 6th, but to suggest it was so much worse than the multi-year, multi-death resistance of the left during Trump's admin, is just you being hyper-partisan.

My view was that the legal attacks on Trump were that he broke the law in the process of running for president, which is not saying he was not legit president (as opposed to his "birther" conspiracy bullshlt where he claimed Obama was not a legit POTUS because he "wasn't a US Citizen"). I never saw those attacks as saying he wasn't the president, but as going after him for breaking laws in doing so. yet TWICE he has pulled the "not a legit prez" with absolutely NO evidence to back his claims. First with Obama and the birth cert., then with Biden and the "stolen election". People cry that he was "treated unfairly" by a group" that opposes him, yet there was enough behind the claims against HIM to get him impeached. TWICE. The result of his claims was nothing for Obama, and his followers attacking the Capitol for the "stolen election". That speaks volumes, no?
I actually tried to Google for info on whether the left was claiming that he was not legally the president. I found nothing, but that doesn't mean it's not out there. If you can find references similar to his well-documented claims, can you share them?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Tyranothesaurus-a
You made my point. I'm a liberal who is left of you on most things not Covid related. You can't see the forest past the trees. You read for the purpose of responding, not for the purpose of understanding. It's OK. Movements, causes and revolutions need people like you.

You have to understand in order to respond, else you can't have a response that is relevant.
Movements. causes, and revolutions NEED people who have a brain and can think for themselves, but they get power from the masses. Perhaps why the Conservapubs are so anti-education. Smart people are dangerous to their power.

 

[SlugButter]

You have to understand in order to respond, else you can't have a response that is relevant.
Movements. causes, and revolutions NEED people who have a brain and can think for themselves, but they get power from the masses. Perhaps why the Conservapubs are so anti-education. Smart people are dangerous to their power.

No Rob. Revolutions and causes need people with a brain to lead the revolution,, but the mass amount of players within any revolution are reacting on emotion, not intellect. It works that way regardless of political affiliation. For you not to see this on your side of the aisle tells me where you sit between the 2 types of people.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You are “sure” with just how much research?
I know you’ll claim you are too busy for facts, but I challenge you to pick a random handful of the lies and Google the quotes.
Come back and tell us that there is no such quote that exists.
Keep in mind that pretty much everything he said, wrote, emailed, tweeted, goes into the national archives. If the list -makers fabricated all of the quotes, it can be discovered in seconds.

Challenge accepted, or you make your decisions without proof?

First, there are many ways people can use words in text and speech. When I said "I am sure" you need to be able to comprehend what is said. Like "I am sure you will be O.K., it's just a small cut." I still said sure. I did not say "I know for a FACT that the list is B.S.

Second, it's not on me to prove what you said. Show us this "list" with 20,000 provable "lies" by the former President. You Shouldn't be asking me to prove the list, you should ask the people or person who made the list to prove they are lies. Or are you 100% it is all factual because you dislike Trump? If so, those sound like feelings you are using to make your decisions.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

No Rob. Revolutions and causes need people with a brain to lead the revolution,, but the mass amount of players within any revolution are reacting on emotion, not intellect. It works that way regardless of political affiliation. For you not to see this on your side of the aisle tells me where you sit between the 2 types of people.

You think wars are won by a smart leader with a bunch of idiots below? Nope. Wars are won by very smart leaders with a reasonably smart downline, eventually leading to the automatons.

Like a beehive: take out the Queen and the drones are useless until they find a new queen.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You think wars are won by a smart leader with a bunch of idiots below? Nope. Wars are won by very smart leaders with a reasonably smart downline, eventually leading to the automatons.

Like a beehive: take out the Queen and the drones are useless until they find a new queen.

So by "reasonably smart downline" you mean dumb but follow the leaders orders right? Apparently they are useless until they have a leader.

 

[SlugButter]

You think wars are won by a smart leader with a bunch of idiots below? Nope. Wars are won by very smart leaders with a reasonably smart downline, eventually leading to the automatons.

Like a beehive: take out the Queen and the drones are useless until they find a new queen.

Your reference to a beehive interesting. Remove the queen and the drones are useless. Were you trying to prove my point on purpose?

 

[SlugButter]

I made a grammatical error there. Better trash me for it...

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

I’m trying to watch Joy Reid on NBC talk about the Rittenhouse trial. There was an entire whole video of what happened that they literally just played in court. Was there a 2nd trial held in secret that I didn’t get to see? Im for much stricter gun laws inside city limits (outside city limits is a bit different story for me), but…..I’m not gonna lie, I would’ve shot them. I would’ve been screwed since I don’t carry a gun, but if I happened to be a gun guyI would’ve shot at least the last 2 guys for sure. I used to skate when I was a kid and I’ve busted a few people with a skateboard. I totally could’ve killed someone with a skateboard, and any of you on this forum could also. I don’t know. I’m a little torn on this one. Rittenhouse is an idiot who should’ve stayed his punk *** at home, but after seeing the real speed video of how that went down, I’m not sure if it wasn’t self defense honestly. Rittenhouse poked the bear by screwing around with the BLM rioters and almost got his ******* beat down. As much as I love to see big mouth tough guys get beat down, putting myself in his shoes…I would have assumed that a bunch more people would’ve jumped in a gave me a beat down if I just sat there and took it. I dunno. Looks bad for the prosecution to be honest.

You've proven you don't know shit. Only an idiot would take anything you say seriously

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Also, both prosecutors and the defense attorney just seemed like unlikeable guys to me. I didn’t like any of them or how they came off on a personal level.

Nobody gives a f*ck crybaby

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

First, there are many ways people can use words in text and speech. When I said "I am sure" you need to be able to comprehend what is said. Like "I am sure you will be O.K., it's just a small cut." I still said sure. I did not say "I know for a FACT that the list is B.S.

Second, it's not on me to prove what you said. Show us this "list" with 20,000 provable "lies" by the former President. You Shouldn't be asking me to prove the list, you should ask the people or person who made the list to prove they are lies. Or are you 100% it is all factual because you dislike Trump? If so, those sound like feelings you are using to make your decisions.

Then it may be that your understanding (or lack thereof) of words is causing poor communication. When you say "I am sure" you are expressing "confidence in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right" If you are not confident or do not really know, then you are not "sure".
This is not me "interpreting your words". It is YOU using your words incorrectly, and thinking others will understand what your mind is thinking and trying to convey.
If you're not sure, just say "I think" or "I feel". Those words convey that you don't really know, or haven't fully evaluated your position.
Words are important, ever more so when the only form of communication is by the "written" word. Have you ever noticed how some books are tenfold better than others? It's partly because the author is using their words to convey all the subtleties that are in a face-to-face conversation, but lost on paper.

You are familiar with the list because you said you are sure it is fabricated. IF you don't know about the list and have never seen it, HOW could you be "sure" it is fabricated? That's like writing a movie review without ever seeing the movie (yes, movie reviewers have been busted for that).
I could present a bunch of lies from the list, but I am confident you would say that I was fabricating THAT subset, or that i only picked out the lies I had already verified. I was asking YOU to to a random pick so that it would be fair and no claims of my bias could be made.

If you agree that my pick would be random, I will post ten lies from the list that you can cross-check. OR I will post ten AND the cross-check I have done.