Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2016, 01:17 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
*Hugs Thump to protect him*

There.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Foxen's post
24-06-2016, 02:21 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 01:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 09:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  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 [...]

Knowing her by hours of phone conversations, I am happy to say that Heathen will vociferously debate a view, and do so in a reasonable manner. She doesn't refuse to engage me at all; she speaks her mind in a plain and civil manner.

But I think she has boundaries that she won't permit crossing, and you've crossed them on several occasions in the way you address her, I think. She's more than capable of speaking for herself so I won't go much further -- but "ignorant", or "incapable of learning and self-improvement" do not describe the woman I know, and I can't let such gibes slide by.
My view of her is based on the way she has been conducting herself on the forums, not on phone conversations you had with her, so there's not much I can say in response to this part of your post other than that she needs to adjust her approach on the forums to match the one she takes with you in private. I don't mind that she doesn't want to debate me specifically; what I take issue with is the fact that she wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to be able to claim that the opposing arguments are conspiracy theories and lies without doing the intellectual legwork that is required to make those claims in good faith. What's worse is that she keeps doing it even after being called out on it. Just a few hours ago, Heatheness asserted that my response to her contained "blatant lies" without a.) citing which of my statements were lies and b.) providing evidence to support the accusation that they are false.

I can't help but think that even you, as one of her friends, would consider this to be lazy and dishonest behavior. Have a look at what she first said in this thread and take note of how utterly disingenuous her characterization of my stance is (That I simply "know" Clinton to be guilty, completely ignoring the fact that I have cited a number of reputable sources, including the Inspector General's report, to support this view). Nobody forced her to participate in this thread, nobody mentioned her name or quoted her, not a single person asked her for her opinion. The expression "put up or shut up" comes to mind. To put it more bluntly, she needs to either defend the accusations she throws at people's heads or shut the fuck up.

Your decision to defend a friend is admirable, but I'm afraid I can't let your friendship with her get in the way of my decision to criticize her (Not that I think that this is what you were trying to achieve).

(24-06-2016 01:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  If you think I was debating her, you've got a lot to learn about how people interact. I said, exactly, "That'd be an interesting read, got a link?" Not a challenge, not debating, but a simple request for information so that I can add to my own database. If that's what you think debating is, you must have a lot of bad days ... or be surrounded by folks who never ask questions.
Just for the record, no, I don't think you were debating her, but she failed to address your request for information either way. She could have responded with a "No, sorry, I don't have a link" or a "Yes, here you go", but instead of doing that, she decided to ignore your request entirely and pretend like the question was never asked. Again, she was trying to have her cake and eat it too by JAQing off about an alleged GOP-led effort to fabricate evidence about Clinton's e-mail scandal without doing the necessary research (a simple Google search, in this case) to confirm whether or not this story was actually legitimate. Unsurprisingly, she also decided to ignore the post in which I cited a politifact article that rated this story as "mostly false."

(24-06-2016 01:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You clearly don't understand how we are able to disagree agreeably, but seem instead to attempt to impose your own zero-sum approach to relationships. We don't work that way; we disagree amicably, give each other latitude to think for ourselves, don't badger the other when there is not a perfect overlap of opinion.

I don't appreciate being wielded as a weapon, and will not accede to it. Please do not use me in such a manner again.
That's fair. I respect you enough to honor your request in the future.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 03:04 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 11:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Have you seen the TV show House of Cards? The scene in which Raymond Tusk is being questioned in front of a government committee is oddly reminiscent of what happened here. I'll see if I can upload the relevant clip on YouTube later today.

This is the scene I was talking about, by the way:



[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 03:49 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Her approach is not that different at all online vs real life. I don't belittle her, and so we get on just fine. Perhaps if you tried that you might get better mileage? When someone treats me poorly, I am not inclined at all to humor their demands for this or that link; online, when subjected to that sort of treatment, I revert to sarcasm and mockery, as you yourself know. Other people handle that sort of refusal to interact with someone they find obnoxious in a different way. You don't get to define a relationship, because it is by definition an interaction, not an imposed status.

As for my asking for a link, that is different than asking for a "source", which word I never used. Asking for a source implies a challenge to the fact being bruited, which I wasn't doing.

I'm pretty uncomfortable in this conversation, because my sticking up for her can be read as her not being able to stand on her own two feet, and she is certainly able to do that. For that reason, I am going to leave off this conversation, and she can take up the cudgel if she so desires.

Tighten your chin-strap! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 04:08 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 01:17 AM)Foxen Wrote:  *Hugs Thump to protect him*

There.

Heh, a knucklehead like me doesn't need protection -- he needs a cuppa coffee and a cigarette to wake up, or unwind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 11:11 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  My point about not knowing how to debate, ^^^ proven, because you can't even engage socially [...]
You think I was engaging socially with you in that last post? Do you even know what that word means? You should pick up a couple dictionaries and look it up. Here, let me help you with that: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Asocially

(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  [...] without throwing insults or having a tantrum and your blatant lies are a joke.
There you go again, accusing someone of lying without being specific and without offering so much as a single shred of evidence to support your accusation. The reason why you can't contribute anything to these debates is because you're intellectually vapid. You couldn't form a good argument even if you had all day to do it because you don't even have the first clue about the meaning of the words "soundness" and "validity" in the context of philosophy.

(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  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.
I think you meant to say "facts" at the end there. I know, I know, it's hard to tell the difference between the two for someone like you. Do you actually believe that Clinton's many scandals are opinions? God, you're such a dummy. Laugh out load

(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  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.
Thanks for confirming that you don't know how to use Google. I found the story you were talking about in less than five minutes. Maybe the reason you decided not to look it up is because you were afraid that it would turn out to be wrong, which it did.

(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  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.
They were criticising the candidate you plan to vote for, dummy. They repeated criticisms which you previously referred to as "conspiracy theories" and "proven lies" when I brought them up, but you remained silent when they did. Why is that, I wonder?

(23-06-2016 09:58 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  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.
My social skills are just fine, but thank you for your concern. The many friendships I have formed on TTA over the years are proof enough of that. Again, I'm not the problem here, you are. You're an ignorant and intellectually dishonest person.

Command, demand, order, belittle, insult... meh, 'tis the spittle spewing of the impotent. Drinking Beverage

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
[Image: 53437591.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
24-06-2016, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 06:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  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?

Millions of people voted for her. She will likely be the next president. No one has to justify voting for her to the fucking likes of someone who doesn't even live in the US and supported the idiot Trump.
You are not smarter than MILLIONS of people.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 05:48 AM by Heatheness.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 03:49 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Her approach is not that different at all online vs real life. I don't belittle her, and so we get on just fine. Perhaps if you tried that you might get better mileage? When someone treats me poorly, I am not inclined at all to humor their demands for this or that link; online, when subjected to that sort of treatment, I revert to sarcasm and mockery, as you yourself know. Other people handle that sort of refusal to interact with someone they find obnoxious in a different way. You don't get to define a relationship, because it is by definition an interaction, not an imposed status.

As for my asking for a link, that is different than asking for a "source", which word I never used. Asking for a source implies a challenge to the fact being bruited, which I wasn't doing.

I'm pretty uncomfortable in this conversation, because my sticking up for her can be read as her not being able to stand on her own two feet, and she is certainly able to do that. For that reason, I am going to leave off this conversation, and she can take up the cudgel if she so desires.

Tighten your chin-strap! Smile

To be honest, since I was asking a question about it, I thought your question was rhetorical. I did not mean to ignore it on purpose, I simply thought it wasn't expected. Sorry, my bad. Smile

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
24-06-2016, 05:46 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 05:42 AM)Banjo Wrote:  [Image: 53437591.jpg]

I am chill, dude. I'm so chill, I need a sweater. Big Grin

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