Current events discussion

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Look in the mirror buddy

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Listen you two, @RobGMN and @Jimi77 , there are MANY meanings and uses for the word "IN". MANY MEANINGS. Just because the two of you refuse to land on the same meaning I have used does not make me wrong. Not even a little bit. Not when I am ******* with Rob as I waste his time, not when I am being literal.

For a nerve to be IN bone it would be encased in that bone. It would not enter or exit the bone. When I say nerves are through bone it is because the nerve is always starting somewhere else (spinal cord). I am speaking literally. If you want me to speak vaguely like the two of you then I could say the nerve in the bone so that we are on the same page. If you two want to speak literally then you could certainly do that. If not, I don't give a ****.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So you wont or can't show the adjudication?

TF are you talking about?
The hearing DECISION was given MULTIPLE times. If you think you have in some way proved the decision no longer exists, then show the proof.
Until you do, there is no changing the facts.

So show me your proof to dispute the hearing decision.

CONTEXT? There IS more to that conversation.

And? Are you saying that the sentence cannot stand on its own?
Maybe you later claimed the sentence was a lie, or that you didn't really mean it?
Or maybe you have different definitions of the words "see" and "my own eyes"?

Share the "context" that changes the meaning of YOUR statement: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."

I told you exactly why I would need visual proof. You ignored it so you could talk shit just like you did with Buck. When you call him a pedo. You claim I need to see rapes happen for some sick perverted need.

The "why" is not relevant. You stated VERY clearly: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."
Or are you now saying you only need to see it to believe it SOMETIMES?

And hey, are you ever going to provide the definitions for a "regular quote", plus what ever the OTHER one is that you claim exist?
I haven't seen those, or examples of a "regular quote", or the OTHER kind.
Did you forget about that claim?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

TF are you talking about?
The hearing DECISION was given MULTIPLE times. If you think you have in some way proved the decision no longer exists, then show the proof.
Until you do, there is no changing the facts.

So show me your proof to dispute the hearing decision.

Like I said... show an Adjudication of Guilt for **** against Trump. Nothing you keep posting over and over is showing that.

And? Are you saying that the sentence cannot stand on its own?
Maybe you later claimed the sentence was a lie, or that you didn't really mean it?
Or maybe you have different definitions of the words "see" and "my own eyes"?

Share the "context" that changes the meaning of YOUR statement: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."

And WHYYYYYYYYYYYY would I need to see it to know it happened? So I could do what Rob?

The "why" is not relevant. You stated VERY clearly: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."
Or are you now saying you only need to see it to believe it SOMETIMES?

Stop stalling.

And hey, are you ever going to provide the definitions for a "regular quote", plus what ever the OTHER one is that you claim exist?
I haven't seen those, or examples of a "regular quote", or the OTHER kind.
Did you forget about that claim?

Yes you have. Stop claiming you haven't.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

A normal quote:

"We fight like hell... fight like hell... I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building..." - Trump

A Verbatim quote:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." - Trump

Do you see how it changes the intent?

Of course you don't. You were smart and voted for Harris.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Like I said... show an Adjudication of Guilt for **** against Trump. Nothing you keep posting over and over is showing that.

I did, with the judge's hearing decision that I quoted from, and a link to the text of the decision itself.
Do you want me to read it to you out loud? Post the entire decision across five messages here? Send you a pdf?
WTF are you asking for?

And WHYYYYYYYYYYYY would I need to see it to know it happened? So I could do what Rob?

So you could believe it happened.

Stop stalling.

"Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."
Or are you now saying you only need to see it to believe it SOMETIMES?

Yes you have. Stop claiming you haven't.

Ahhhh, back to the "repeat a lie until it becomes truth" plan.

So, are you ever going to provide the definitions for a "regular quote", plus what ever the OTHER one is that you claim exist?
I haven't seen those, or examples of a "regular quote", or the OTHER kind.
Did you forget about that claim?

Listen you two, @RobGMN and @Jimi77 , there are MANY meanings and uses for the word "IN". MANY MEANINGS. Just because the two of you refuse to land on the same meaning I have used does not make me wrong. Not even a little bit. Not when I am ******* with Rob as I waste his time, not when I am being literal.

For a nerve to be IN bone it would be encased in that bone. It would not enter or exit the bone. When I say nerves are through bone it is because the nerve is always starting somewhere else (spinal cord). I am speaking literally. If you want me to speak vaguely like the two of you then I could say the nerve in the bone so that we are on the same page. If you two want to speak literally then you could certainly do that. If not, I don't give a ****.

STILL trying, huh?
Have you noticed how none of the other guys will back you when you say stupid shit like this? It's because they know it's ******* moronic and a pathetic attempt to say you are right.

in- expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
"dressed in their Sunday best"
Wait a minute, Their Sunday best is clothing that totally encases their body? No holes where their forearms/hands stick out of the sleeves? No holes where there calves/feet stick our of the pant legs?
That must be terribly hard to go to church in.

"the doctor is in his office"
No he's not. He's just "passing through", because he is not "attached" to the building.

"There is blood in my veins"
Not really. It's just "passing through" because it's not "attached" to the vein.

You can write 1,000 pages on how "in" is not "in" when it comes to nerves being "in" bone.
You will still be wrong.

So you waste your own time trying to waste MY time. Good logic, there.
And a failure, as usual.
The waste of time is you so desperately trying in ANY way to not be wrong.

A normal quote:

"We fight like hell... fight like hell...I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building..." - Trump

That's not a quote. It's a paraphrase. You don't put quotation marks around a paraphrase, but you DO cite it.
Do you not know this?
Take a class, already.

A Verbatim quote:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." - Trump

Assuming you actually quoted it verbatim, then yes.
But here's the rub: YOU said a verbatim quote must include every single word. Where is the rest of the speech?
You just violated what YOU declared as the rule of verbatim quotes.

So now a verbatim quote DOESN'T have to be every single word he said?

Do you see how it changes the intent.

What happened to "regular quote", and whatever the other unnamed type is?
Did you forget again?

The comedy stylings of ThxOne: " There is no such thing as a partial quote verbatim. It's just a partial quote."
Since HE knows better than the Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam Webster dictionaries. LOL

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I did, with the judge's hearing decision that I quoted from, and a link to the text of the decision itself.
Do you want me to read it to you out loud? Post the entire decision across five messages here? Send you a pdf?
WTF are you asking for?

I thought you have been to court. Now you are going to feign ignorance like you don't know what I am asking for. When the judge has the accused stand up and then reads the verdict to him and adjudicates him guilty. I want YOU to show me where a judge reads to Trump "I find you guilty of ****."

So you could believe it happened.

Ahhh proof you ignore what you are told so you can smear someone.

Ahhhh, back to the "repeat a lie until it becomes truth" plan.

So, are you ever going to provide the definitions for a "regular quote", plus what ever the OTHER one is that you claim exist?
I haven't seen those, or examples of a "regular quote", or the OTHER kind.
Did you forget about that claim?



STILL trying, huh?
Have you noticed how none of the other guys will back you when you say stupid shit like this? It's because they know it's ******* moronic and a pathetic attempt to say you are right.

in- expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
"dressed in their Sunday best"
Wait a minute, Their Sunday best is clothing that totally encases their body? No holes where their forearms/hands stick out of the sleeves? No holes where there calves/feet stick our of the pant legs?
That must be terribly hard to go to church in.

"the doctor is in his office"
No he's not. He's just "passing through", because he is not "attached" to the building.

"There is blood in my veins"
Not really. It's just "passing through" because it's not "attached" to the vein.

You can write 1,000 pages on how "in" is not "in" when it comes to nerves being "in" bone.
You will still be wrong.

So you waste your own time trying to waste MY time. Good logic, there.
And a failure, as usual.
The waste of time is you so desperately trying in ANY way to not be wrong.

That's not a quote. It's a paraphrase. You don't put quotation marks around a paraphrase, but you DO cite it.
Do you not know this?
Take a class, already.

Again, writing more words isn't going to make you right.

Assuming you actually quoted it verbatim, then yes.
But here's the rub: YOU said a verbatim quote must include every single word. Where is the rest of the speech?
You just violated what YOU declared as the rule of verbatim quotes.

Again, you are ignoring everything I said just so you can be a smelly ****. I told you, when you tried to use a play as your example. It does not have to be the whole play but if you are quoting a sentence and you want to quote it verbatim then it has to be the WHOLE SENTENCE AS IT WAS WRITTEN WITH EVERY WORD QUOTED AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

So now a verbatim quote DOESN'T have to be every single word he said?


What happened to "regular quote", and whatever the other unnamed type is?
Did you forget again?

See above you smelly ****.

The comedy stylings of ThxOne: " There is no such thing as a partial quote verbatim. It's just a partial quote."
Since HE knows better than the Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam Webster dictionaries. LOL

There you go again. You are wrong so you must talk shit. You know what else smells like shit? A shitty smelly ****.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I really hope you are being ignorant just to **** with me... if so HaHa. I suspect you are just ignorant though so here. Tell me if these two things are different.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

That's a news report, not a hearing decision

So NPR is lying about it?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that

Then why didn't they say that...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The reality of the decision is the judge declared Trump liable for something the jury found him not liable of doing. Unless something has changed in the legal system, Judges can't do that. What the judge really did is twisted logic and words (much like THX does with the word 'in') to include **** so that people like you can run around shouting "He's a ******, he's a ******." For anybody looking for accurate context, I think the Newsweek article does a good job deciphering the BS without being overly long.

So let's put this all in proper context. Trump was tried by a jury of his "peers" and found not liable for ****. Trump was not found guilty (or not guilty) of or convicted (or not convicted) of anything since that can only happen in a criminal case. A politically motivated judge then took upon himself to play "I get to define words" and labeled Trump a ****** and Trump was actually never found guilty of, convicted of or found liable for ****. Because this wasn't a trial by judge, but a trial by jury, Trump was never found liable ****. Furthermore, the only reason this trial even took place is NY amended a law just so loonie bird E Jean Carroll could bring this case. And by loonie bird, I mean this woman is ******** insane and has no credibility what-so-ever. Furthermore, most people with half a brain have concluded a billionaire that spends his time covering up affairs with pornstars and trades his model wife for a newer model wife whenever it suits him, probably isn't raping or sexually abusing women department store dressing rooms.

Additionally, I find it interesting that NY felt compelled to pass a law to recognize the ****/SA survivors, but made it a civil law, not criminal and only had a 1 year window; I smell a fish. What if the ****** was a broke as phuck? What if the victim was broke and couldn't afford legal representation? The law really only works in a case with the metrics of the E Jean Carroll case. If the alleged victim and perp aren't relatively affluent, the case just doesn't work. Looks more like the weaponization of the judicial branch than looking out for the survivors of SA. Because Trump is getting the short end of the weaponization of the legal system right now, the lefties are doing back flips without recognizing the danger of weaponizing the judiciary, restricting free speech, mandating vaccines, etc. And the left claims it's the right that doesn't respect the US Constitution.

Lastly, this is one of those things that falls into there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Trump (or Biden or whomever) that there really isn't a need to invent one out of gossamer.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-****-1799935

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/05/09/trump-liable-******-abuse/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-****-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

https://apnews.com/article/trump-****-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

E Jean Carroll: Jury finds Trump sexually abused writer in NY department store

The jury in the civil case also finds the former president liable for defaming writer E Jean Carroll.

www.bbc.com

None of those news links are telling the truth...Rob knows they're all maga pro-trumper media outlets...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So NPR is lying about it?

Isn't that what the right-wing has been crying about the Mass Media all along?
That they are liars?

Regardless, go directly to the source if you want facts. In this case, the source being the text of the actual hearing decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

I gave you a link so you can see it and read instead of relying on "so-and-so said". Facts tend to get jumbled when you play the Telephone Game. Like if you ask Thx the definition of "in". He'll make up his own, instead fo giving you one from any of a number of dictionaries. And it will be wrong.

I really hope you are being ignorant just to **** with me... if so HaHa. I suspect you are just ignorant though so here. Tell me if these two things are different.

View attachment 62060

View attachment 62061

"(a group of words from a text or speech)"
Here is a "group of words from a text or speech":
"man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty" - John F. Kennedy
They are quoted verbatim form this paragraph: "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life."
They are unchanged. They are word-for-word. They are direct. They are exact. They are verbatim.
If you think they are not, please show where I have changed the words. Show where I have changed the order of the words. Show were I have changed the spelling.
Show where I have changed ANYTHING about the words in quotation marks.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Isn't that what the right-wing has been crying about the Mass Media all along?
That they are liars?

So you're saying NPR is lying?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Funny how cnn lost a defamation case to Trump for claiming the exact same thing you are Rob...

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Dude, watch this ish:



That's totally normal air traffic like John Kirby said