In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Coordi's schtick is misrepresenting (i.e. lying) about what folks are actually saying.
yes but it's ok, because people are free to lie about what you said and the onus is on you to prove that they are lying. somehow need to prove a negative that doesn't exist, rather than having the liar prove it via simply quoting your post. lib logic is astounding.
allege people said something, call them liars, and make them prove they didn't say. lib logic is unbeatable
Already got called a liar earlier today about a CNN headline and then had to scroll through CNN to find it.
I think "Liar" is the new "Joy"
it's funny because although i can't find it because he always shares it in the form of a tweet
but he used to regularly post this a lot in the forums - reality distortion field is flawless
yes but it's ok, because people are free to lie about what you said and the onus is on you to prove that they are lying. somehow need to prove a negative that doesn't exist, rather than having the liar prove it via simply quoting your post. lib logic is astounding.
These sorts of disputes almost always start with some statement or question that is dripping with innuendo.
Person A says something like the following:
"This is a public service announcement that another Somali was arrested for fraud in Minneapolis."
or
"Can we all admit that it is reckless to yell insults at an ICE agent, no matter what you think immigration policy should be?"
or
"Did you ever seriously think that Trump would succeed in remaining in office after the 2020 election?"
Then Person B responds in an over the top way to the obvious innuendo rather than the literal words used by Person A:
"We get it. You think all Somalis are criminals."
or
"Imagine thinking ICE agents should shoot people for being impolite."
or
"Oh great. Another January 6 apologist who wants to pretend like trying to steal an election is the same thing as protesting Jim Crow laws."
Then Person A plays the complete innocent and says:
"Person B needs to take an aspirin and quit lying. Show me where I said XYZ. Hint: I didn't."
Then Person B says some version of:
"We weren't raised by wolves. We all know what you were implying. Go **** youself."
* * *
Boths sides are to blame in these exchanges. I guess we all have to make our own assessments about the relative proportion of blame that we want to assign to each side.
These sorts of disputes almost always start with some statement or question that is dripping with innuendo. Person A says something like the following:"This is a public service announcement that another Somali was arrested for fraud in Minneapolis."or "Can we all admit that it is reckless to yell insults at an ICE agent, no matter what you think immigration policy should be?"
Welcome to 2+2, Governor Newsom. Truly an honor
I never said she did. I said I was pretty sure she did and I gave my reasons why, namely that she said she did.
This is a part of the whole learning to read thing that Rococo was telling you about.
The whole idea that a single person has voted illegally triggers you guys so much it's hilarious
I never said she did. I said I was pretty sure she did and I gave my reasons why, namely that she said she did.
This is a part of the whole learning to read thing that Rococo was telling you about.
1. Rococo is not my lord and savior
2. You are such a stupid, scummy piece of ****
Should we go back and look at the tape?
Part of the benefit of a text based forum is that we can do that.
The whole idea that a single person has voted illegally triggers you guys so much it's hilarious
My existence on planet earth triggers you like nothing I’ve ever seen
Relax, you shithead
My existence on planet earth triggers you like nothing I’ve ever seen
Relax, you shithead
You're not intelligent enough to trigger me unfortunately. I wish you were.
Should we go back and look at the tape?
Part of the benefit of a text based forum is that we can do that.
Should we go back and look at the tape?
Part of the benefit of a text based forum is that we can do that.
This is a part of your general stupidity. Try to be original. If I say that I trigger you you don't go and say that it's the opposite, instead try to come up with something novel.
Repeating my own words back to me doesn't make you look smart. It does the exact opposite.
This is a part of your general stupidity. Try to be original. If I say that I trigger you you don't go and say that it's the opposite, instead try to come up with something novel.
Repeating my own words back to me doesn't make you look smart. It does the exact opposite.
The whole idea that a single person has triggered you so much it's hilarious
This is a part of your general stupidity. Try to be original. If I say that I trigger you you don't go and say that it's the opposite, instead try to come up with something novel.
Repeating my own words back to me doesn't make you look smart. It does the exact opposite.
The whole idea that a single person has triggered you so much it's hilarious
For someone whose entire stock & trade is trying to trigger people, Lucky sure has thin skin.
I wasn't pretending to be anyone's lord and savior. And as I'm sure you are aware, I wasn't exactly defending Person A in my previous post.
This just begs the question of what message Person A is trying to communicate. Very often, the message seems relatively obvious, even if the actual post is written in "just asking questions" style for the purpose of claiming otherwise.
This just begs the question of what message Person A is trying to communicate. Very often, the message seems relatively obvious, even if the actual post is written in "just asking questions" style for the purpose of claiming otherwise.
Sure, but if you're referencing something from months/years ago, might want to actually quote it to support your claim of lies.
This just begs the question of what message Person A is trying to communicate. Very often, the message seems relatively obvious, even if the actual post is written in "just asking questions" style for the purpose of claiming otherwise.
It doesn't matter. We can only assume that person A means exactly what they said. It's far easier this way and avoids all of the problems that come from putting words in their mouth.
I wasn't pretending to be anyone's lord and savior. And as I'm sure you are aware, I wasn't exactly defending Person A in my previous post.
I’m more addressing the idea that i need to be beholden to that post for any reason and luckbox trying to use that to defend his white noise
It doesn't matter. We can only assume that person A means exactly what they said. It's far easier this way and avoids all of the problems that come from putting words in their mouth.
Sure, buddy, that sounds like a great idea. Top level thinking.
