Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 07:01 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 04:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 12:55 PM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  I personally don't see how he has been prejudiced. I'm willing to see examples.

I dont know if you're being sarcastic or not. Laugh out load We really are friends, though. Smile Maybe it sounds unlikely? I dunno.

I wasn't referring to anyone one persons here but all people. each of us has a history and profile of posting. There are also histories of combative animosity between certain posters. All these things go into what and how they speak to each other. It not always just that single convo that is being referenced. That's what I was stating.

And yes and no I was being sarcastic, in as much as I'm quite sure he is your friend but the sarcastic (not aimed at you, btw) part is, why? He's always friendly with passive types, what he can't stand is people with opinions that don't mirror his own.

Ohhh. Fair enough.

Vosur and I have a lot of common interests. ^^

He's fine with people having opinions that don't mirror his. I do know that he's very passionate about politics. He has reasons why he doesn't like a person. If he's convinced that something he thought was actually not true, he'll say so. He doesn't like when he thinks someone is lying. He also doesn't like it when people defend something or someone he thinks is bad.

Also, I dunno. I think I have a better idea of what Vosur is like since I know more about him. He only acts the way he does here because he's so passionate about politics. He also enjoys debating. ^^ He's very caring and silly once you get to know him. Smile

☆☆☆
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 07:30 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 07:01 PM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 04:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I wasn't referring to anyone one persons here but all people. each of us has a history and profile of posting. There are also histories of combative animosity between certain posters. All these things go into what and how they speak to each other. It not always just that single convo that is being referenced. That's what I was stating.

And yes and no I was being sarcastic, in as much as I'm quite sure he is your friend but the sarcastic (not aimed at you, btw) part is, why? He's always friendly with passive types, what he can't stand is people with opinions that don't mirror his own.

Ohhh. Fair enough.

Vosur and I have a lot of common interests. ^^

He's fine with people having opinions that don't mirror his. I do know that he's very passionate about politics. He has reasons why he doesn't like a person. If he's convinced that something he thought was actually not true, he'll say so. He doesn't like when he thinks someone is lying. He also doesn't like it when people defend something or someone he thinks is bad.

Also, I dunno. I think I have a better idea of what Vosur is like since I know more about him. He only acts the way he does here because he's so passionate about politics. He also enjoys debating. ^^ He's very caring and silly once you get to know him. Smile

In the "lying department" Trump and Clinton are pretty much equals. Clinton's lies are a little easier to demonstrate because she has been in the forefront of politics longer and I think on the whole she is not quite as intelligent as Trump. I'm not saying she is dumb by any means. She is intelligent....but Trump edges her out slightly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 07:44 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 07:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 07:01 PM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  Ohhh. Fair enough.

Vosur and I have a lot of common interests. ^^

He's fine with people having opinions that don't mirror his. I do know that he's very passionate about politics. He has reasons why he doesn't like a person. If he's convinced that something he thought was actually not true, he'll say so. He doesn't like when he thinks someone is lying. He also doesn't like it when people defend something or someone he thinks is bad.

Also, I dunno. I think I have a better idea of what Vosur is like since I know more about him. He only acts the way he does here because he's so passionate about politics. He also enjoys debating. ^^ He's very caring and silly once you get to know him. Smile

In the "lying department" Trump and Clinton are pretty much equals. Clinton's lies are a little easier to demonstrate because she has been in the forefront of politics longer and I think on the whole she is not quite as intelligent as Trump. I'm not saying she is dumb by any means. She is intelligent....but Trump edges her out slightly.

Totally. I was talking more about people here rather than the candidates. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. Trump is not perfect and like any other candidate, he has lied. I was trying to say that Vosur doesn't like when he thinks someone here is lying.

☆☆☆
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 08:16 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 07:01 PM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 04:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I wasn't referring to anyone one persons here but all people. each of us has a history and profile of posting. There are also histories of combative animosity between certain posters. All these things go into what and how they speak to each other. It not always just that single convo that is being referenced. That's what I was stating.

And yes and no I was being sarcastic, in as much as I'm quite sure he is your friend but the sarcastic (not aimed at you, btw) part is, why? He's always friendly with passive types, what he can't stand is people with opinions that don't mirror his own.

Ohhh. Fair enough.

Vosur and I have a lot of common interests. ^^

He's fine with people having opinions that don't mirror his. I do know that he's very passionate about politics. He has reasons why he doesn't like a person. If he's convinced that something he thought was actually not true, he'll say so. He doesn't like when he thinks someone is lying. He also doesn't like it when people defend something or someone he thinks is bad.

Also, I dunno. I think I have a better idea of what Vosur is like since I know more about him. He only acts the way he does here because he's so passionate about politics. He also enjoys debating. ^^ He's very caring and silly once you get to know him. Smile

If he's passionate about debating then he should learn how. What he does is not debating.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heatheness's post
23-06-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
I think that it was very nicely scripted. Trump was coherent and intelligible for over 40 minutes. There was a near-complete lack of the spittle-spraying, aneurism-inducing Trumper-tantrums that we've come to know and love. It almost makes you wonder what's happened to #TheRealDonaldTrump. For his next trick, Reince Priebus will have his #Trumpuppet sing "I've Got No Strings".

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 07:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 07:01 PM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  Ohhh. Fair enough.

Vosur and I have a lot of common interests. ^^

He's fine with people having opinions that don't mirror his. I do know that he's very passionate about politics. He has reasons why he doesn't like a person. If he's convinced that something he thought was actually not true, he'll say so. He doesn't like when he thinks someone is lying. He also doesn't like it when people defend something or someone he thinks is bad.

Also, I dunno. I think I have a better idea of what Vosur is like since I know more about him. He only acts the way he does here because he's so passionate about politics. He also enjoys debating. ^^ He's very caring and silly once you get to know

him. Smile

In the "lying department" Trump and Clinton are pretty much equals. Clinton's lies are a little easier to demonstrate because she has been in the forefront of politics longer and I think on the whole she is not quite as intelligent as Trump. I'm not saying she is dumb by any means. She is intelligent....but Trump edges her out slightly.

So now you are talking about degrees of lying. You are so dumb. You are really dumb. For real.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 04:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Are you seriously suggesting that unless you are specifically quoted the semantic content of your words cannot be determined? Any reasonable person would infer that those are saying essentially the same thing.
No. The issue here is that the common expression "to run something into the ground" is not semantically equivalent to "ruining the economy." My post made no references to the economy, implicitly or otherwise, meaning you had no reason to think that.

(23-06-2016 04:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  He's always friendly with passive types, what he can't stand is people with opinions that don't mirror his own.
That's completely untrue. The reason why I'm not friendly with you is not because you hold contrary opinions, it's because you're too spineless to defend them against any criticism and too dishonest to concede when you've been proven wrong. Much like Bucky Ball, you revel in a toxic combination of ignorance and arrogance, incapable of learning and self-improvement. How many different people need to criticize Hillary on TTA until you decide to come out of your little safe space to defend your decision to vote for her? You have a reason for not debating me on the subject, but what you don't have is a reason to continuously refuse to engage with criticisms posted by Thumpalumpacus, BnW, Metazoa Zeke or any of the other people who posted in this thread.

(23-06-2016 08:16 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  If he's passionate about debating then he should learn how. What he does is not debating.
How would you even know? You have no credibility when it comes to that topic. Heck, you don't even seem to know how to perform a basic Google search of your claims before blurting them out in public and when somebody asks you for a source, like Thumpalumpacus did earlier in this thread, you simply retreat to your bubble and refuse to answer them. If you think that's what debating is, then it's no surprise that you think that I don't know how to do it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 09:17 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 01:46 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 04:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Are you seriously suggesting that unless you are specifically quoted the semantic content of your words cannot be determined? Any reasonable person would infer that those are saying essentially the same thing.
No. The issue here is that the common expression "to run something into the ground" is not semantically equivalent to "ruining the economy." My post made no references to the economy, implicitly or otherwise, meaning you had no reason to think that.

So tell me how does one "run something into the ground" without tanking "the economy". What's she gonna do to ruin your country into the ground without involving "the economy".
....
You're a disingenuous fuck. I used to respect your opinion and then you took an arrow to the head.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So tell me how does "run something into the ground" without involving "the economy". What's she gonna do to run your country into the ground without involving "the economy".
....
You're a disingenuous fuck. I used to respect your opinion and then you took an arrow to the head.
Jeez, at least do me the courtesy of giving me a chance to respond to your question before you call me disingenuous. Bucky Ball already asked me to explain the meaning of my words earlier in this thread, here's what I had to say in response:

(23-06-2016 09:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How about you tell us what you meant, exactly, by "Merkel will continue running Germany into the ground for another four years and I will definitely stay here." if you deny it.
The meaning of my words should be clear from the statements that preceded it. If the AfD isn't elected come 2017, Merkel will continue running Germany into the ground by continuing her policy of inviting countless people from a barbaric, violent and misogynistic cultures into the country. Do you remember what happened on New Year's Eve and more recently at various big festivals in Germany? Massive sexual assaults, unprecedented in scale, on German women by these savages. This just goes to show that Merkel doesn't necessarily care about women's issues simply because she's one herself. After all, she's not at risk of being molested or raped by these people. You'd think a bona fide misogynist like you think I am would be welcoming of Islamic culture (I don't drink any alcohol, so I wouldn't even have to make that sacrifice to convert!) and yet strangely enough, I'm not. I wonder how you square that circle in your head. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 04:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Are you seriously suggesting that unless you are specifically quoted the semantic content of your words cannot be determined? Any reasonable person would infer that those are saying essentially the same thing.
No. The issue here is that the common expression "to run something into the ground" is not semantically equivalent to "ruining the economy." My post made no references to the economy, implicitly or otherwise, meaning you had no reason to think that.

(23-06-2016 04:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  He's always friendly with passive types, what he can't stand is people with opinions that don't mirror his own.
That's completely untrue. The reason why I'm not friendly with you is not because you hold contrary opinions, it's because you're too spineless to defend them against any criticism and too dishonest to concede when you've been proven wrong. Much like Bucky Ball, you revel in a toxic combination of ignorance and arrogance, incapable of learning and self-improvement. How many different people need to criticize Hillary on TTA until you decide to come out of your little safe space to defend your decision to vote for her? You have a reason for not debating me on the subject, but what you don't have is a reason to continuously refuse to engage with criticisms posted by Thumpalumpacus, BnW, Metazoa Zeke or any of the other people who posted in this thread.

(23-06-2016 08:16 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  If he's passionate about debating then he should learn how. What he does is not debating.
How would you even know? You have no credibility when it comes to that topic. Heck, you don't even seem to know how to perform a basic Google search of your claims before blurting them out in public and when somebody asks you for a source, like Thumpalumpacus did earlier in this thread, you simply retreat to your bubble and refuse to answer them. If you think that's what debating is, then it's no surprise that you think that I don't know how to do it.

My point about not knowing how to debate, ^^^ proven, because you can't even engage socially without throwing insults or having a tantrum and your blatant lies are a joke.

Your first mistake is, that I owe you a debate or a defense of my position, I do not. You are not interested in a debate, your interest is in beating people over the head with your big opinions.

Thump stated he would be interested in a link on a question I asked Girly. If I had a link, I would have offered it. What I had was a question. And for the record, the other people in this thread were not engaging me in any conversation, they were posting to each other. Again, I am not obliged or even expected to jump in and answer criticisms someone posts to someone else, certainly not when it's not directed to me.

You seem to think because I come to the table you have a right to force me to eat what you want. You are wrong. You insult and call me names in nearly every post you put my name in. You have no horse in this race but I don't care that you discuss it however, it just isn't your business and because of that, I also don't give your opinion any weight. That is what galls you.

I do not care whether you like me or not. You have poor social skills and cannot engage without histrionics. I will not consent to that.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: