Infidel Dog

OK, that one was funny.

No surprises at the State of the Union tonight. Earlier, Tucker gave his predictions of what Joe would offer up as happening in his fantasy land, State of the Union concerning what we'll call "Biden's America." Then Tucker told us what was actually happening in Real World America. The difference was bracing:

It was fun robo, but I'm starting to get bored. I've decided to give you a reprieve. Thank me later.

You quoted me in a continuing discussion about the Senate report. You lied by saying you'd read it in its entirety then when you got caught not knowing much about it you said, "No, not that 900 and some odd page report. It was a different 500 and some odd page report I read in its entirety. Either way it's BS. But if you're going to say the quote you quoted from me concerned anything but the senate report that's a lie. If you still can't figure out why that is you're almost impossibly thick. So you're either stupid or a liar. You tell me which.

You're the last person on this board who should ever be asking for exactitude from anybody.

Exactly? Oh so now "exactly" matters does it? You crack me up.

I thought I was clear. I already know what Joe's going to say. You three only hear what they want to so it doesn't matter what you listen to. If you guys ever come up with something new. Call me. I'll listen. I listened to Joe's last red Nazi hate speech. That was wild.

I think Sarah Huckabee Sanders does the response. I'm more interested in that, so I'll be tuning in late.

So basically, 'everything is wonderful. Don't believe your lying eyes." And then it's nap time.

The great thing about the "stupid liar" trap is it only works on egoistic, narcissists who can't admit they could ever be wrong. So when you get one, you know what you got. I mean really, the escape is so easy. All he had to do was say something like, "Yeah, oops sorry about that. I was under the weather and not concentrating well enough. I missed what that quote actually concerned. I thought we were still talking about the Mueller report." To which I would have replied something like, "That's OK. It happens, but I don't believe you read the Mueller report in its entirety either. " But at least he'd be out of the trap. But he can't do that because in order to do it he'd have to admit there could be a case where he could ever be wrong. Makes me smile and think "Hey, this is fun."

Yeah, you just keep struggling up there in the "stupid liar" trap, thinking if you pile up enough lame excuses we'll forget what actually happened. Hodad more or less dismissed the Mueller report as not being sufficient to prove collusion. Instead he introduced the 900 hundred some odd page Senate report as the gold standard for showing collusion. To which you immediately replied: So by your own admission you knew what report Hodad was talking about. Shorty afterward I posted: You then quoted that and claimed you had read the report in its entirety. Now if you didn't understand that quote you quoted concerned the senate report you're stupid. Later it became clear you didn't actually know the details in the senate report so then you said 'no. I was talking about the Mueller report. I read that in its entirety' (Not that it matters but I don't believe that either.) So you're either too stupid to follow basic reasoning and understand what you're quoting, or you're lying. Take your pick.

Curious coincidence that what I called the senate report was in line with what we'd been discussing for a page or two, included a source reference and was clearly stated in the quote you used. You couldn't follow that? Seriously? Then you're either lying or you're not capable of basic reasoning. Maybe both are the case. You're in a trap, dummy. I call it the "stupid liar trap." We can play the game all year if you want. I'm having fun. You don't seem to be.

You know I'd gladly veer way off topic to explain it to you. In fact I almost did. But I'm thinking maybe that might be too much. However... The Case for Climate Realism

I can only guess what you're talking about. You seem to be saying you didn't understand what people had been talking about since the previous page 7. The 900 and some odd page Senate report. Apparently you didn't understand the link to the reference on the 900 some odd page Senate report on the previous page 7. So what you seem to be telling us now is you weren't lying, you're just stupid. Holes getting pretty deep, Bud. Maybe you should stop digging.

Maybe. (Although I'd replace the word denialism with realism.) But if we're approving of it now maybe you want to revisit your previous abhorrence of what you call "Whataboutism." That was you, wasn't it?

Not exactly. Didn't it happen more like this? I think the strawman was whoever tried to introduce "refusal to acknowledge election results." Shall I go back to page 6 to discover who that was? (Psst...it was Contrarian making points from the left. ) It is what it is though and I thought WCM made some good points in response. I notice what we're doing now though is diverting from the diversion. Kind of, ignore Hillary. Let's just talk about Trump collusion. Or in your case Trump's campaign's alleged collusion.

900 and some odd pages sure as Hell does identify it since we were talking about it since the previous page seven where a digested version appeared with a link to a think tank. Keep trying though. You're only disgracing yourself further. Myself I won't fall into that trap. I owe you an apology Hodad. You did call out the campaign, not Trump specifically when you posted the link. I was going by the general tone preceding it that wanted to blacken Trump specifically. But if you don't, you don't, I guess. So if I understand your claim now it's that individuals within the campaign may have done something or things at some point or points that may have been dodgy and signified a willingness to collude with Russia on some sort mission to achieve some sort of unsubstantiated goal. It happens in campaigns, I guess. Ask Hillary. Even if true though, I'm still not sure how this connects to Jan. 6. Diverts to wonky minutia on another topic that can never been conclusively nailed down to the satisfaction of both parties, I guess. Generally when people do that their conceding they've lost the original point.

OK, I'm back. I actually did just read the section on Manafort. So I don't know or care what you were discussing on the other threads. On this one claims were made that the 900 and some odd page Senate report showed conclusively and specifically that Trump specifically was colluding with Russia. Nothing in the Manafort section of the report shows that at all. Manafort was this weaselly business man who used his connections to weasel his way into a chief campaign strategist position with Trump. If you go to section 27, page 27 of the report you'll discover they eventually come to this conclusion. Manafort may have been an untrustworthy weasel, down on his luck business man with Ukrainian and Russian connections but nothing about his time on the Trump campaign shows Trump specifically colluding with Russia. Try again.

They're on different threads, are they? Hang on.

Of course it did, bald faced liar. And the sun rises in the East and sets in the west. The sky, when you can see it behind the clouds, is blue. Up means up, down means down, left does not mean right and you're a liar. This quote concerning the 900 and some odd pages report is the one you responded to. It refers specifically to the 900 and some odd page report, not the Mueller report (come to think of it I don't believe you even read that in it's entirety.) It's on Page 8 of this thread. Right at the top. Are you telling people not to believe their lying eyes or something? My God man. What are you hoping to accomplish by that lie?

I'm not reading through this 10 pages of slush to find whatever you're talking about concerning Manafort but I remember the case well enough to know whatever it was it did not specifically show collusion between Trump specifically and the Russian government. Tell you what. Give me the page number I'll show you what I mean. Edit: Oh and for God's sake don't be daft and link me to that 900 and whatever amount pages report again. If I need it. I can find it. We both know what I'm talking about. The page number on this thread. Be brave enough to post that.

No, it wasn't, you bald faced liar. It's on page 8. You're reacting to this quote:

Sometimes your lies are so bold, blatant and in my face I'm almost impressed. Do you think we don't have access to the quote function or something? I'm snickering right now. I can't believe you thought that lie was something you could get away with. From Page 8: And I notice you're still talking like you have specific proofs without showing us specifically what you're talking about. Instead you just keep posting links to a 966 page report I know you haven't read and know very few people elsewhere in the universe are going to bother even trying.

Then there's this 955 page senate report you say you read. Still waiting to see this mountain of specific "evidence" you want us to believe you have from either of them, Evidence Boy.

I'm still not sure how this desperate need you have to believe Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election with Clinton has anything to do with Jan. 6.