• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virtue signalling liberal walks into a bar...and lies...

Fishking said:
Lol...no, you got called out for how you came into this thread. You have the right to your own feelings but not your own facts.
Click to expand...

If you consider anything in the OP as factual I have some oceanside property to sell you in Arizona. I get that it's getting harder for you to distinguish reality from boomer fan fiction when you're climbing up there in age but please try your best.
 
It's not enough that pseudo-intellectuals like Ben Shapiro own 17 year old socialists, eventually, they have insert themselves into the fantasy.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
CMPancake said:
If you consider anything in the OP as factual I have some oceanside property to sell you in Arizona. I get that it's getting harder for you to distinguish reality from boomer fan fiction when you're climbing up there in age but please try your best.
Click to expand...

The hilarity is that the OP basically describes you to a T. So predictable.
 
Fishking said:
The hilarity is that the OP basically describes you to a T. So predictable.
Click to expand...

It's wild watching the symptoms develop and worsen in real time. I'd be laughing if it wasn't so tragic.
 
Visbek said:
Your inability to distinguish between a paraphrase, and an actual quote, is not my problem.



:roll:

Dude? I've been posting here for a long time. I paraphrase people using quotation marks all the time, and I'm not the only one. It's normal. Get over yourself.



I see no indication that you want to "stimulate discussion." It looks like you want to bash liberals, for doing something that is not in fact partisan in nature. *Yawn*
Click to expand...

Oh, that makes sense:

Paraphrase: "The adaptation or alteration of a text or quotation to serve a different purpose from that of the original."

In other words your quotes were meant to deceive. And you use this technique often?
 
Nickyjo said:
Perhaps not. But wouldn’t it be nice if Trump showed some concern about Russian interference in the election and the possibility that they might do it again? Though I guess if Putin tells him they didn’t do it, it’s settled.
Click to expand...

Darn, you were doing so well until that last sentence. I believe that being a multimillionaire businessman who became President of the United States requires a certain amount of narcissism. Trump could not separate simple Russian interference from the Clinton/Democrat/MSM conspiracy that the Russians actually changed the outcome of the election. He knew that he had defeated a lousy candidate and rejected any suggestion that he had outside help. I don't know that Trump has continued to resist the fact that the Russians attempted to interfere in the election since this was proven in the Mueller Report. I believe that he would be happy to sign any legislative efforts to strengthen our electoral system if the Democrats decide to legislate rather than bow to Putin's efforts to weaken the President and the Office and create discord among the populace. (There, now I've done it.)
 
RenoCon said:
Paraphrase: "The adaptation or alteration of a text or quotation to serve a different purpose from that of the original."

In other words your quotes were meant to deceive. And you use this technique often?
Click to expand...
:roll:

chrome_GP2uEqkDMx.jpg

No, paraphrases are not a method of deception. Paraphrasing is something you should have learned in junior high. It's also obvious you don't want a substantive discussion.

'Bye Felicia.
 
RenoCon said:
Darn, you were doing so well until that last sentence. I believe that being a multimillionaire businessman who became President of the United States requires a certain amount of narcissism. Trump could not separate simple Russian interference from the Clinton/Democrat/MSM conspiracy that the Russians actually changed the outcome of the election. He knew that he had defeated a lousy candidate and rejected any suggestion that he had outside help. I don't know that Trump has continued to resist the fact that the Russians attempted to interfere in the election since this was proven in the Mueller Report. I believe that he would be happy to sign any legislative efforts to strengthen our electoral system if the Democrats decide to legislate rather than bow to Putin's efforts to weaken the President and the Office and create discord among the populace. (There, now I've done it.)
Click to expand...

Have to say you were doing so well until your next to last sentence. Conceding that it maybe hard for Trump to do so, I don’t think Trump has shown much interest in legislation that would protect the next election. This I don’t understand: the Russians interfered, maybe affected some votes, but I haven’t seen any claims that they swung the election, unless I missed them. What does it cost Trump to admit to this and appear aggressive in trying to prevent a repeat?
 
Deuce said:
I’ve read the report. Mueller clearly believes Trump is guilty.
Click to expand...

Mueller clearly does not believe Trump is guilty. He and his team hate Trump for personal and political reasons, but despite every possible effort could find no crime Trump committed, none. Rather, they lament that they couldn't and noted Trump doesn't like them as much as they don't like him - giving examples how he demonstrated neither liking or trusting them.

To many Democrats, even if they openly hate you, if you don't fully like and agree with them you are a criminal.
 
TrueScotsman said:
The Altantic is now far-left when in reality it has always been Right Wing, yet only now usurped by an even further Right Wing movement. Perhaps your perception is shaped by the fact you are "Very Conservative", and I doubt you read the report or are representing this individual honestly. Plenty of left leaning people here read the report and have mopped the floors with the sad arguments Right Wing sychophants have to offer. Care to provide your knock down arguments against Obstruction of Justice? I'm just sick of this anecdotal nonsense from the Right.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic - Media Bias/Fact Check

The Atlantic Media Bias | AllSides

Leanings of Magazines, Newspapers - Detecting Bias - LibGuides at Lorain County Community College

Check the Political Bias of Any Media Site in This Massive Database
 
nota bene said:
The Atlantic - Media Bias/Fact Check

The Atlantic Media Bias | AllSides

Leanings of Magazines, Newspapers - Detecting Bias - LibGuides at Lorain County Community College

Check the Political Bias of Any Media Site in This Massive Database
Click to expand...
They're Neoconservative, which somehow is Left Wing now because it is critical of the President, Pro-Rule of Law and Pro-Free Trade and Immigration. I've been reading for the paper and am sufficiently educated in 20th Century political philosophy. The Atlantic is not Leftist, this is just the result of recent polarization due to Trump.

Some of their main writers, David Drum, Andrew Sullivan and Jeffrey Goldberg. All Neocons, a group that has largely been culled from the Republicans and became the NeverTrumpers. Formerly supporters of the Bush dynasty and affirmers of Globalization led by America.

I can do my own thinking and analysis myself, thank you very much. I doubt you never even read the Atlantic.
 
CMPancake said:
Guys like FishKing and the OP set the bar so low for Conservatives, it's comical. Guys like Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are their philosophers, Stephen Crowder is their comedian, and Trump is their President. Literally all you have to do to tap on the pleasure centers in their brains is call Liberals stupid and/or dumb.
Click to expand...

Better Stephen Crowder than Stephen Colbert, better Shapiro and Peterson rather than Michael Moore, and certainly better Trump than any of his current Democratic challengers.
 
Nickyjo said:
Perhaps not. But wouldn’t it be nice if Trump showed some concern about Russian interference in the election and the possibility that they might do it again? Though I guess if Putin tells him they didn’t do it, it’s settled.
Click to expand...

How would you like the Prez to show concern? Air strikes against Syria? Expulsion of diplomats?

Been there, done that.
 
Ouroboros said:
How would you like the Prez to show concern? Air strikes against Syria? Expulsion of diplomats?

Been there, done that.
Click to expand...

He could start by pressuring McConnell to act on either the democrats' bill on election security -- or the republican one. From what I read, Mitch is doing neither. He could tell the American people that he has warned either Putin or the 400 pound guy sitting on a bed not to interfere again. He could back up the Florida republicans concerned about hacking their elections. He could speak with the same urgency about this attack as he does about "Middle Easteners in the caravan." He could support the FBI actions in this area.

NYTimes reports that former DHS head Nielson was told by Trump's chief of staff not to mention her concerns about future hacking. Problem is that it seems Trumps fragile ego can't process both that he won the election and that the Russians interfered, even if they didnt make a difference.
 
TrueScotsman said:
They're Neoconservative, which somehow is Left Wing now because it is critical of the President, Pro-Rule of Law and Pro-Free Trade and Immigration. I've been reading for the paper and am sufficiently educated in 20th Century political philosophy. The Atlantic is not Leftist, this is just the result of recent polarization due to Trump.

Some of their main writers, David Drum, Andrew Sullivan and Jeffrey Goldberg. All Neocons, a group that has largely been culled from the Republicans and became the NeverTrumpers. Formerly supporters of the Bush dynasty and affirmers of Globalization led by America.

I can do my own thinking and analysis myself, thank you very much. I doubt you never even read the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, I'm surely one of the least educated and well-read folks on board. :roll: But I do know just how long Kevin Williamson lasted at The Atlantic. Anything else defensive you have to say?
 
nota bene said:
Oh, well, I'm surely one of the least educated and well-read folks on board. :roll: But I do know just how long Kevin Williamson lasted at The Atlantic. Anything else defensive you have to say?
Click to expand...
Not well read enough it seems. Kevin Williamson was terminated for advocating on Twitter that those who have an abortion should be HUNG. Are they not a REAL conservative outlet, because they choose to terminate him for his abominable view?

I just gave you a totally accurate analysis of The Atlantic, you have nothing at all to address the substance of what I said. If this Kevin Williamson jab is the best you got, then I suggest you move on.

Learn about diversity on the Right, educate yourself on the Neoconservative movement. Not my job to.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Not well read enough it seems. Kevin Williamson was terminated for advocating on Twitter that those who have an abortion should be HUNG. Are they not a REAL conservative outlet, because they choose to terminate him for his abominable view?

I just gave you a totally accurate analysis of The Atlantic, you have nothing at all to address the substance of what I said. If this Kevin Williamson jab is the best you got, then I suggest you move on.

Learn about diversity on the Right, educate yourself on the Neoconservative movement. Not my job to.
Click to expand...

How funny that you comment on how well-read I am when you didn’t read accurately what I wrote. :lol:

But no, The Atlantic is not a conservative nor a neo-conservative publication.

You’re right; it’s not your job to educate me, and this is a plus for you as it frees your time to work on learning the difference between your opinion and fact. And then maybe you can study the impact of tone in one’s presentation and how insulting others and suggesting that they “move along” isn’t a smart rhetorical strategy.

But here’s a time-saver for you: It’s “hanged,” not “hung.” :mrgreen:
 
nota bene said:
How funny that you comment on how well-read I am when you didn’t read accurately what I wrote. :lol:

But no, The Atlantic is not a conservative nor a neo-conservative publication.

You’re right; it’s not your job to educate me, and this is a plus for you as it frees your time to work on learning the difference between your opinion and fact. And then maybe you can study the impact of tone in one’s presentation and how insulting others and suggesting that they “move along” isn’t a smart rhetorical strategy.

But here’s a time-saver for you: It’s “hanged,” not “hung.” :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I read your sarcasm.

And, yes it is, you have nothing novel or interesting to say about it, because you don't know enough without googling it. I'm well aware of the facts, and you're extra light on those.

Since you have nothing of substance to add, I will be moving on. And I don't care how my rhetoric impacts your delicate sensibilities, you are not obligated to receive my respect. You have no argument, bye!
 
TrueScotsman said:
I read your sarcasm.

And, yes it is, you have nothing novel or interesting to say about it, because you don't know enough without googling it. I'm well aware of the facts, and you're extra light on those.

Since you have nothing of substance to add, I will be moving on. And I don't care how my rhetoric impacts your delicate sensibilities, you are not obligated to receive my respect. You have no argument, bye!
Click to expand...

Oh, I added substance; you just don't like it. The Atlantic is not a conservative publication or "neo-conservative" either, and your "accurate analysis" is nothing more than your uninformed opinion.
 
nota bene said:
Oh, I added substance; you just don't like it. The Atlantic is not a conservative publication or "neo-conservative" either, and your "accurate analysis" is nothing more than your uninformed opinion.
Click to expand...
An assertion is not substance, bye.
 
The Mark said:
I don't mean a red herring as in there's nothing really there, but rather that there's not enough evidence to support it.

The appearance of focus on it by the media and democrats before the Mueller report came out undercut their narrative.
Click to expand...

As to the trump tower meeting. I find it interesting that manafort left immediately.

Mueller said that he didn't think he could.prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew that what they were doing was against the law.

Manafort surely would have known.

But I came to the conclusion they might get off due to stupid. And I was right
 
What if...? said:
As to the trump tower meeting. I find it interesting that manafort left immediately.

Mueller said that he didn't think he could.prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew that what they were doing was against the law.

Manafort surely would have known.

But I came to the conclusion they might get off due to stupid. And I was right
Click to expand...
I dislike how Mueller worded his press conference recently.
The whole "we couldn't prove he didn't" is not how the legal system works, I had though - they're supposed to prove someone did a thing, not prove they didn't.
 
CMPancake said:
I have no idea what to make of this thread. Because one part of me totally finds it believable that a boomer in some ****ty dive bar in Nevada would be trying to pick a political fight with anyone that looks educated, but I also find it super difficult to suspend my belief from what reads like Boomer fanfiction.
Click to expand...

Boomers gonna Boom.
 
Nickyjo said:
He could start by pressuring McConnell to act on either the democrats' bill on election security -- or the republican one. From what I read, Mitch is doing neither. He could tell the American people that he has warned either Putin or the 400 pound guy sitting on a bed not to interfere again. He could back up the Florida republicans concerned about hacking their elections. He could speak with the same urgency about this attack as he does about "Middle Easteners in the caravan." He could support the FBI actions in this area.

NYTimes reports that former DHS head Nielson was told by Trump's chief of staff not to mention her concerns about future hacking. Problem is that it seems Trumps fragile ego can't process both that he won the election and that the Russians interfered, even if they didnt make a difference.
Click to expand...

I won't claim that Trump's performance is sterling in all respects, though I still think his tough stance toward Russian expansion carries more weight than what he does or doesn't tell Florida Republicans. I'm very tired of seeing pundits proclaim every one of Trump's reactions, or non-reactions, as proof that he's a Russian puppet, particularly after the appearance of the Mueller Report. The problem as I see it is that IF Trump under-reacts as you say, it's in reaction to the way the Left has prosecuted their alleged "search for truth." Hardly any prominent Leftie has really given Trump the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty," and if he's really innocent of doing anything criminal, then I think it's quite understandable that he MIGHT hesitate to validate the arguments of people who want to crucify him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom