Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_Some Schmo]

Some Schmo is a racist and a virulent turd bird bigot

LMAO

Yep, you're Drumpf's clone. You love to accuse everyone else of your worst faults. Whiny little bitch.

And of course, you're a damned hypocrite.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Some Schmo is a racist and a virulent turd bird bigot

LMAO

Yep, you're Drumpf's clone. You love to accuse everyone else of your worst faults. Whiny little bitch.

And of course, you're a damned hypocrite.

And here's Object Lesson #3. Leftists love to tell everyone how they take the high road or they're open-minded-tolerant-and-diverse, but when push comes to shove they're just, you know, what they are. SS demonstrates Leftist behavior perfectly, and why they should never be allowed to achieve any sort of power.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

And here's Object Lesson #3.

damned hypocrite.

[_Xenophon]

Ceeboo, you’ve not written Doc off yet so maybe you’ll consider his words here.

I think that although we’ve traded a post or two, the closest I’ve recently been able to get to examining one of your premises with you led to three posts by you criticizing my word choice, as opposed to exploring the topic.

I would find it refreshing if you were willing to ditch the appeal to authority and discuss why you believe, as example, Prager’s anecdote about the Starbucks incident amounts to Leftists trying to shut down your free speech. Prager, and then yourself, use this as an example of such without seemingly being able to explain how that actually works. Simply making the accusation without being able to rationally examine or defend it is precisely what contributes to the dysfunction infecting political discourse these days.

Pulling us back a bit, I think you really drive home where a lot of the frustration rests, canpakes. I've had to take a step back from the Prager U stuff (not that I'm all that engaged of a poster) because it is a jumping off point that I don't think can take us anywhere. Just my two cents from someone that has had, from my perspective anyway, what one could consider productive conversations with Ceeboo.

To Docs second point that you quote, although Ceeboo isn't the only poster that I think at times posts in a way that prevents engagement, he is the only one that I know that gets upset when he is called on it. I also suspect Doc's list of posters with "beams in their eyes" is much longer than mine.

[_subgenius]

Nice act. ; )

Here you are; a few examples of Trump lying, at the link below. I’d say that the quantity presented here isn’t typical for normal functional folks.

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ing/false/

Thanks for the research, but we were discussing the ineptitude in a specific example provided by the poster.

nice act indeed.

[_canpakes]

Nice act. ; )

Here you are; a few examples of Trump lying, at the link below. I’d say that the quantity presented here isn’t typical for normal functional folks.

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ing/false/

Thanks for the research, but we were discussing the ineptitude in a specific example provided by the poster.

nice act indeed.

One example can always be claimed to be no evidence of ongoing behavior, no matter the example. I figured that I’d help you out of your comprehension difficulties with a few more.

[_honorentheos]

Let's see. The argument is that Trump is a compulsive liar. The ante was the then most recent example of Trump, faced with evidence, not dealing with truth but instead went with the, "We did a good job and 3000 people died." The people of New Orleans suddenly reevaluated their experience with Bush doing a bad job.

That was just the ante taking the most immediate headline. And subbie didn't even try to see it before trying to call.

Let's toss a little bit more on the table, again the argument being Trump is a compulsive liar who can't tell the truth even when the facts are staring him in the face. As demonstrated in the other thread, everyday brings a new one.

From today regarding Trump trying to claim he had no idea Bob Woodward tried to talk with him while writing his upcoming book:

Brad Wilcox: Well, Mr. President, how can I spend all this time talking to people and — like Kellyanne and Raj and Republican senators?

Trump: Who were the senators? No, they never called me about it.

Brad Wilcox: Senator [Lindsey] Graham said he had talked to you about talking to me. Now, is that not true?

Trump: Senator Graham actually mentioned it quickly in one meeting...

Brad Wilcox: Yes. Well, see. And then nothing happened.

Trump: That is true. That is true. Well, that — no, but that is true. Mentioned it quickly, not like, you know, and I would certainly have thought that maybe you would’ve called the office. But that’s okay. I’ll speak to Kellyanne. I am a little surprised that she wouldn’t have told me. In fact, she just walked in. [to Kellyanne] I’m talking to Bob Woodward. He said that he told you.

Conway: Yes.

Trump: About speaking to me. But you never told me. Why didn’t you tell me?

Conway: [inaudible].

Trump: I would’ve been very happy to speak to him. All right, so what are you going to do?

[_Some Schmo]

Let's toss a little bit more on the table, again the argument being Trump is a compulsive liar who can't tell the truth even when the facts are staring him in the face. As demonstrated in the other thread, everyday brings a new one.

I would contend that it is pointless to argue with someone who claims Drumpf isn't a liar. It's not possible to have a rational discussion with someone that irrational. You'd have more success arguing with a dog. It's an intractable level of stupidity.

[_honorentheos]

I agree, but I don't think subbie doubts Trump is a liar. Instead, he seems to think Trump is just a prolific but inconsequential liar. He would argue other Presidents have told far more significant lies. My point to subbie is Trump's lies are compulsive. It's a pathology rather than just politics. I chose to use fresh off the press examples of his saying something that's both not true and is being said with the evidence before him that shows its not true to make the point it's constant and he can't help himself.

[_Some Schmo]

I agree, but I don't think subbie doubts Trump is a liar. Instead, he seems to think Trump is just a prolific but inconsequential liar. He would argue other Presidents have told far more significant lies. My point to subbie is Trump's lies are compulsive. It's a pathology rather than just politics. I chose to use fresh off the press examples of his saying something that's both not true and is being said with the evidence before him that shows its not true to make the point it's constant and he can't help himself.

subs is not here to discuss anything, he's not persuaded by rational arguments, and he doesn't trade in good faith.

Like any mindless Drumpf supporter, he doesn't think; he reacts, just like the ape he supports. Your comments to him are only of value to onlookers (which is a value by itself, granted. I suppose you have no illusions your comments are making any impression on him).