User Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: and that you're still hung up on, unable to move past lame petty semantics, that have already been clarified. It's not me hung up on this; it's you. You never "clarified" anything. You double and triple downed on the literal meaning of "nothing" for 3 hours. Again, you tried to move the timeline to an absurd point. Even now, you still can't be honest about what you were doing here. 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: That was your hint, genius. If the claim is that silly and absurd, why would you settle on the most absolute and literal, but least reasonable interpretation, rather than the less literal, far more reasonable one? Failing to recognize that isn't a big deal. What's lame is that you didn't just assume the dumbest meaning behind the words, you insisted on them, argued them for 3 pages, accused people of lying, and refused any attempts to clarify. That's what you call good faith debate? Ookay. You did not attempt to clarify. See above. You are just lying more now. 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: No, this is just you projecting your tribal assumptions on me. Not really, I asked you over and over and over again and you kept ignoring it. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 17 hours ago, User said: You never "clarified" anything. You double and triple downed on the literal meaning of "nothing" for 3 hours. Again, you tried to move the timeline to an absurd point. Even now, you still can't be honest about what you were doing here. I explicitly conceded the use of the word "nothing" by its literal meaning was wrong, and now you're trying to say I double and triple downed on it? Jesus. I think it's obvious who's being objectively, brazenly dishonest here. 17 hours ago, User said: Not really, I asked you over and over and over again and you kept ignoring it. I didn't answer before because it wasn't really a question. It was an accusation barely disguised as a question (more bad faith debating). It was nothing more than you projecting your tribal biases, and in one of the most boring and least original ways possible. "Whatabout BLM".... 🫠 When I finally did answer your dumb question, it wasn't the answer you were looking for and you had nowhere to go with it. Predictable. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I explicitly conceded the use of the word "nothing" by its literal meaning was wrong, and now you're trying to say I double and triple downed on it? Jesus. I think it's obvious who's being objectively, brazenly dishonest here. You prefaced that with an "IF" qualifier and followed it up with a laughing emoji. No, you did not explicitly concede at all. Your continued dishonesty is evident by your saying that was "explicit" when you clearly conditioned it on an "IF" qualifier and then laughed. 9 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I didn't answer before because it wasn't really a question. It was an accusation barely disguised as a question (more bad faith debating). It was nothing more than you projecting your tribal biases, and in one of the most boring and least original ways possible. "Whatabout BLM".... 🫠 When I finally did answer your dumb question, it wasn't the answer you were looking for and you had nowhere to go with it. Predictable. I am not convinced you honestly answered, just threw that out there to make a point... Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 You guys are still arguing over whether Trump incited an "insurrection" or not? Good Lord... IF Trump had done so, the Democrats would have him in jail by now. Thus...its reasonable to say he did NOT. @User, This is a silly debate to waste your time with. The truth is very very obvious. @Moonbox, Please return to wherever you were hatched, and learn logic and realism. They will serve you well as you grow up. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 34 minutes ago, User said: You prefaced that with an "IF" qualifier and followed it up with a laughing emoji. No, you did not explicitly concede at all. Your continued dishonesty is evident by your saying that was "explicit" when you clearly conditioned it on an "IF" qualifier and then laughed. More smarmy semantics!?!? Okay! 🤣 The "IF" qualifier doesn't change anything unless you disagreed with it. Did you? The emoji is irrelevant. That's tone. 35 minutes ago, User said: I am not convinced you honestly answered, just threw that out there to make a point... You weren't honestly asking the question, so what foolishness were you playing at asking it repeatedly, complaining that I wasn't answering, then going nowhere with it when I did finally answer? What was your point? Where was that reasoning supposed to take us? Why are you ignoring these questions? 🙄 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 19 Report Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Moonbox said: More smarmy semantics!?!? Okay! 🤣 The "IF" qualifier doesn't change anything unless you disagreed with it. Did you? The emoji is irrelevant. That's tone. This continues to be your problem. You claim to have "explicitly" conceded, but in reality you prefaced it with saying you were throwing my "buffoonish nitpicking back in my face, an "IF" qualifier, italics, and a laughing emoji. No, I did not take that seriously at all, I still don't. When you clear up that you are clearly not just conceding, but admitting that what you did was wrong, when you spent days trying to contrive the timeline to literally support a 3 hour narrative to the lengths you did... then we can move on. 4 minutes ago, Moonbox said: You weren't honestly asking the question, so what foolishness were you playing at asking it repeatedly, complaining that I wasn't answering, then going nowhere with it when I did finally answer? What was your point? Where was that reasoning supposed to take us? Why are you ignoring these questions? 🙄 I was honestly asking the question, the point was obvious, that Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 20 Report Share Posted June 20 20 hours ago, User said: This continues to be your problem. You claim to have "explicitly" conceded, but in reality you prefaced it with saying you were throwing my "buffoonish nitpicking back in my face, an "IF" qualifier, italics, and a laughing emoji. I literally just addressed this argument and offered my counter to it. You unsurprisingly dodged...electing instead to uselessly repeat what I responding to. 21 hours ago, User said: I was honestly asking the question, the point was obvious, that Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests. Your point was foolish. I agreed that Nancy and the Democrats were guilty of the BLM riots, so now you've admitted the Trump was guilty. Well done. 👌 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 20 Report Share Posted June 20 19 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Your point was foolish. I agreed that Nancy and the Democrats were guilty of the BLM riots, so now you've admitted the Trump was guilty. Well done. 👌 "as guilty" So, to whatever extent you think Trump is guilty, so to is Pelosi and other Democrats like the VP Harris. So, now what? Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 22 hours ago, User said: "as guilty" So, to whatever extent you think Trump is guilty, so to is Pelosi and other Democrats like the VP Harris. So, now what? That's the question you now have to answer, since your own goof reasoning just agreed to Trump's guilt, which is what you were arguing against since the beginning of the thread. 👏 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That's the question you now have to answer, since your own goof reasoning just agreed to Trump's guilt, which is what you were arguing against since the beginning of the thread. No, I don't have to answer that at all. My point was quite clear. Whatever guilt you think Trump has for January 6th, so to does Pelosi and other Democrats like Harris for violence around BLM protests. My point from the start of this thread was to call out the outright lies by folks on here trying to assert Trump literally directed folks to "invade" the capitol or that he encouraged them to storm... etc... and to your lies, to include that he just sat there without saying anything for 3 hours. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 Libbies consistently deny that Trump had offered the national guard for security at that Jan 6 rally. They also deny that Pelosi ignored the offer because it would have "looked bad". Now the old cow acknowledges her mistake and still Libbies...some but not all to be fair...deny any culpability whatsoever. Ya know...Trump has said that his "revenge" for all the bullshit lawfare the Libbies have waged, would be the success of his next 4 years in the Whitehouse. Fine. Apparently he wants to take the high road. But personally...I'd love to watch him unceremoniously fire hundreds of bureaucrats and Wrey and Garland. I'd also enjoy watching Trump's DOJ and FBI take down the likes of Schiff, Pelosi, and several others in the exact fashion they attacked him in. Meh...one can dream... 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 18 minutes ago, User said: My point was quite clear. Whatever guilt you think Trump has for January 6th, so to does Pelosi and other Democrats like Harris for violence around BLM protests. Your clarity wasn't the problem. It was your logic. On 6/19/2024 at 5:01 PM, User said: Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests. This cuts both ways. I think Pelosi and Harris should go to jail and are guilty as sin. By your own reasoning, you've therefore agreed that Trump should be in prison. Way to argue yourself into a corner. 👏 1 hour ago, User said: My point from the start of this thread was to call out the outright lies by folks on here trying to assert Trump literally directed folks to "invade" the capitol or that he encouraged them to storm... etc... and to your lies, to include that he just sat there without saying anything for 3 hours. Your "point" was dead-on-arrival, and I've only entertained it as long as I have because your debating tactics were so curious/novel. I've been on this forum for 16 years and never seen anyone lean into petty semantics, ultra-literal word mongering and mealy-mouthed lawyer-speak as you have in this thread. You've literally tried warping and reinterpreting my statements based on my use of fonts and emojis. 🤣 That's what we call rock-bottom, and I'm not engaging with it any further. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 47 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That's what we call rock-bottom, and I'm not engaging with it any further. This is comical. Lets do a quick review: You: Claim Trump did not say anything for over 3 hours. Me: Yes he did, here let me show you You: No, that doesn't count, and here, if you move the timeline around to a point that Trump was still giving his speech, it was 3 hours! Me: Um, no, that is still only 2 hours and you moved the timeline up to when he was still giving his speech You: OMG DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WhY yOu TaKe ThIs So LiTeRaLy?! Me RuN aWaY nOw! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 23 Report Share Posted June 23 If a flustered and self-flattering "let's review" summary is what you need to re-assure yourself after all of this, have at her. You'll always be the pedantic flailer who resorted to disputing statements based the usage of italic fonts and emojis 🤣 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 23 Report Share Posted June 23 59 minutes ago, Moonbox said: If a flustered and self-flattering "let's review" summary is what you need to re-assure yourself after all of this, have at her. You'll always be the pedantic flailer who resorted to disputing statements based the usage of italic fonts and emojis 🤣 You can't even be honest in the end... "and I'm not engaging with it any further. " 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.