Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Current events discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jimi77" data-source="post: 8899469" data-attributes="member: 673702"><p>You just post on here to argue about the most meaningless crap. Thx thinks the bait and switch was unethical, is he not allowed to think bait & switch tactics are unethical? The fact that you even ask him to "prove" that bait and switch is immoral is astonishing. </p><p></p><p>I didn't support Thx arguments regarding Kamala; specifically, I posted that I don't see where COTUS prevents the bait and switch, that the GOP could use a similar tactic and that I don't know if there is a FEC law forbidding the bait and switch. So why are you asking me to defend positions that I've never taken and even questioned??? You've lost touch with reality. I'm going to note that when I responded to Thx that I don't see where the COTUS prevents the bait & switch, he didn't respond with pages of "yes it does, where's your proof, etc." He just accepts that I don't think the COTUS clearly prevents the Kamala switch. </p><p></p><p>I never said any laws or rules were broken when the DNC swapped in Kamala, so why are you asking me to tell you what laws or rules were broken? That's insanity. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have no idea why Thx thinks there are no nerves in bones, but I've learned to accept it and don't feel it's necessary to bring it up in a weak attempt to bolster an unrelated argument. Clearly you've chosen to not accept our word that we weren't being literal with "Sleepy Joe." I've gone as far as providing Biden's biographer's opinion that "Sleepy Joe" was in regards to his incoherence and yet you still want to push this narrative that "Sleepy Joe" was a literal nickname. Now I've even gone as far as to switch out "Sleepy Joe" for a literal nickname for Biden, but you still can't let this go. </p><p></p><p>Why did Thx post the definition of Sleepy? To fawk with you. That's also why I responded to Thx's post "That clears things up;" I knew it did nothing to clear it up and ultimately there is nothing I could post that would clear this up. Elementary school kids understand that nicknames aren't always literal; why is that concept beyond your grasp? I assume you used Teflon Don at some point, but you don't believe Trump is actually coated in Teflon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jimi77, post: 8899469, member: 673702"] You just post on here to argue about the most meaningless crap. Thx thinks the bait and switch was unethical, is he not allowed to think bait & switch tactics are unethical? The fact that you even ask him to "prove" that bait and switch is immoral is astonishing. I didn't support Thx arguments regarding Kamala; specifically, I posted that I don't see where COTUS prevents the bait and switch, that the GOP could use a similar tactic and that I don't know if there is a FEC law forbidding the bait and switch. So why are you asking me to defend positions that I've never taken and even questioned??? You've lost touch with reality. I'm going to note that when I responded to Thx that I don't see where the COTUS prevents the bait & switch, he didn't respond with pages of "yes it does, where's your proof, etc." He just accepts that I don't think the COTUS clearly prevents the Kamala switch. I never said any laws or rules were broken when the DNC swapped in Kamala, so why are you asking me to tell you what laws or rules were broken? That's insanity. I have no idea why Thx thinks there are no nerves in bones, but I've learned to accept it and don't feel it's necessary to bring it up in a weak attempt to bolster an unrelated argument. Clearly you've chosen to not accept our word that we weren't being literal with "Sleepy Joe." I've gone as far as providing Biden's biographer's opinion that "Sleepy Joe" was in regards to his incoherence and yet you still want to push this narrative that "Sleepy Joe" was a literal nickname. Now I've even gone as far as to switch out "Sleepy Joe" for a literal nickname for Biden, but you still can't let this go. Why did Thx post the definition of Sleepy? To fawk with you. That's also why I responded to Thx's post "That clears things up;" I knew it did nothing to clear it up and ultimately there is nothing I could post that would clear this up. Elementary school kids understand that nicknames aren't always literal; why is that concept beyond your grasp? I assume you used Teflon Don at some point, but you don't believe Trump is actually coated in Teflon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Current events discussion
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list