Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
i'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Knock it off man. Remember the good ol' days, just think of all we've been through together. Please forgive me, ez willy.
Donald Trump Freekin Rocks!
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
i'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Knock it off man. Remember the good ol' days, just think of all we've been through together. Please forgive me, ez willy.
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
I mean, I guess if you continue to ignore what an ad hominem fallacy actually is, then yeah, we technically could. So...ok. yeah.
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
And, no, it's not really just my narrative...someone posted a link to an educational summary of the how American counties voted in the election based on education. The first thing I posted on my FB account the night of, or day after, the election was something similar...a link to how counties voted based on level of education with the words, "we need to fix our educational system". The way some do not understand what a fact is, like the size of a rally, or the definition of an ad hominem, we need to educate more efficiently.
...and you realize I'm not a Clinton supporter, right? For your posts of Hilary, it was TLDR. Sorry.
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
freedom!
ibleedburgundy
The Anti-Lambo
Dude, that's not how it works.
For one thing, Clinton had already left the Government long before the investigation. A clearance is eliminated when you leave your position, after a debrief. So there was nothing to revoke.
Secondly - and more importantly - the security clearance process absolutely does not take precedence over the Democratic process. That is to say, the American people can elect anyone they want so long as they meet the basic requirements set forth in the constitution. No security expert in the DC bureaucracy can overrule the voters.
Absolutely not - which is why even her most hated political enemies are not prosecuting. The theory that Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump are protecting her is...fucking ridiculous. These people hate each other!
This is not accurate. Comey said, and I quote, there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI." (that would be a clear crime) and Comey also said there was no evidence that Clinton or her co-workers intended to violate the law. Intent is a key element in cases like this.
Hillary Clinton did lie to the public twice about her emails (it sucks, but it's not a crime). I won't defend it. She's a fucking liar - and that's part of what made her a shit candidate. 1) She lied when she said no marked classified information ever came across her server. It did a very small number of times. 2) She also lied when she said Comey backed up public comments up as truthful. He did not.
Source:
Hillary Clinton’s top 10 most misleading claims | PolitiFact
First of all, the FBI director has precisely zero authority to bring charges under any circumstances. So your statement - which is a widely held misconception among conservatives - truly makes no sense. The Attorney General alone has that authority.
You didn't invent this line of reasoning. You heard it somewhere. I myself have heard it because it is rampant on Republican talk radio, FOX news, Republican blogs, Republican facebook memes, etc. The people who invented this line of reasoning KNOW it is nonsense, what's more, they know that you don't know it's nonsense. It's part of the political game, and it's insulting. You should take it personally when media outlets lie right to your face like this. I know I do.
It is only inexplicable because your underlying facts are tainted beyond recognition.
It all makes perfect sense if you understand what actually happened:
Trump and the Republican party and the Republican media told you Hillary was a criminal. You swallowed it whole. You guys chanted "lock her up" at political rallies despite not actually having evidence. NOBODY has ever been prosecuted for careless handling of classified information. EVERY SINGLE CASE where a person was prosecuted for mishandling classified information involves deliberate and subversive activity. There is no evidence of that here. Your partisanship blinded you to this very clear distinction. Trump lied about being able to lock her up. So did his surrogates. Trump enters office and his justice department is utterly unable to back up his lies in court. You are baffled. His lies withstood your scrutiny (or lack thereof) but would shrivel under the scrutiny of an actual judge in an actual court of law. Jeff Sessions has had the authority to prosecute Hillary Clinton for 8 Months now. It was Donald Trump's #1 most stated campaign promise. Still no charges? What's going on!?! But you're a true believer. You make up wild theories for why it must still be true. "Comey is corrupt." "Comey should have brought charges." "Jeff Sessions is covering up for Hillary Clinton." "All of Washington DC is covering up for an insider."
Your version of events is full of holes.
I say this in all sincerity: You have allowed yourself to become wildly mislead on all these issues. You are getting fed bad information from people who intend to take advantage.
Please, don't just knee-jerk reply. Stop and think about this shit man.
Last edited:
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
This is it, exactly. Coincidentally, about an hour ago, I was thinking how I could word this sentiment in a non-offending way. I don't think many Republican supporters understand that their television and radio icons are playing them... they know freedom of speech, they know voting rules and supposed voter fraud, but they also understand that that base isn't interested in truth. It's really funny you wrote that, really I was thinking how I could write the exact same thing.
I will edit this to say that it occurs with the left side as well. That is why it is up to the individual to research, use their own moral judgment, and fact-check as many issues as possible. However, if one doesn't know what a fact is, then there's an underlying problem. For example, the definition of ad hominem. So...we're all screwed, I guess. 'MURICA!
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
IBB said:
Sorry man, i'm tired and not going to address all of the rest. But i'll take a stab at the above.
It is true that Comey did not have the authority to bring charges. It was really inappropriate that he even went on national television to announce he would not recommend charges. But if you remember, there was controversy over Bill Clinton meeting privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch while there was an ongoing investigation into his wife, Hillary Clinton. Just didn't look right, know what I mean? Responding to the controversy, or as a response to the controversy, Attorney General Lynch sorta kinda recused herself and announced she would follow the recommendation of the FBI on whether to bring charges. So essentially Lynch put the authority in Comey's hands. He was then the decider. He did not recommend charges. Clinton was not charged. Follow?
You must have forgotten that part.
I appreciate overall keeping things civil, IBB. I probably won't be posting much over the next few days, busy schedule. But post away, i'll do my best when I can.
Last edited:
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
sheesh, you're still on that? I'm back up, my head is a little foggy and you're eating into my coffee time, but...
Not too long ago there was a thread here, some guy said something like, "where credit is do". So I kind of gently called attention to it, then kind of intentionally provided other commonly made mistakes. I guess to say, don't sweat it, it happens sometimes....tow the line, saying "your" when one means to say "you're". "Rediculous" is another. I incorporated it into sentences that made since. (improper and over use of "that" is another, i'm working on it) Obviously for some folks it was not important what I was saying, but how I said it. I was corrected several times by several people. Not sure what the point is, but there you go.
We've all observed discussions and/or arguments online where some holier than thou proclaims to another, "your uneducated, blah blah blah". I say blah blah blah, because when someone says something like that it is cringe worthy, you tend to hear little else, because it kind of negates anything else the person had to say, especially when whatever else the person had to say was predicated on the claim tht someone else was uneducated. Now, what if someone else piped-in and said, "you're calling someone else uneducated when you cannot be bothered to learn to communicate using proper grammar?". Someone else calls foul, "that's an ad hominem attack, address the point he is making rather than attack his improper grammar and apparent lack of education". THe response comes, "it's not an ad hominem, he made the argument that "your uneducated" while demonstrating his own lack of education". The argument made, the point is, education, who haz it and who doesn't haz it.
I don't know. I guess it boils down to, if you claim someone else was uneducated, in doing so you might want to be careful to not demonstrate your own lack of education. If not managed, your fair game.
Funny it appears you do not agree, yet your kind of doing the same thing. It is an unfair ad hominem for Mac Doobie to attack LeBron James use of improper grammar when he made the claim that (2.8 million) other people was uneducated, stick to the point. The point is, Mac Doobie doesn't even know what ad hominem means.
Anyway, i'm not certain any of that made sense. I need more coffee. more. coffee. You guys have a good day. Keep fuckin' that chicken.
Last edited:
ibleedburgundy
The Anti-Lambo
It was totally inappropriate for Bill Clinton to meet with Loretta Lynch. I completely agree with that point.
ibleedburgundy
The Anti-Lambo
It totally does. On facebook I've found occupydemocrats (whoever they are) lying right through their teeth. I PM'd them about it one time. They didn't reply. Fucking liars.
leddy
Well-known member
We are all screwed, indeed. The amount of people that do fact-check is too small to overcome the masses who fall victim to party propaganda.
TAE
All you have is now
epistemology ...the study of the origin and validity of knowledge....Eye learnt dat fanzy werd n kolledge
And yes we're all screwed....... but the good news as Jimi Hendrix once wrote on a napkin in the Beverly Hilton hotel...I am but a prophet and you are but sheep all in the process of evolution almost at death with yourselves yet on the staircase of birth....someday you may forget the smell of your family
In the end we all end up right back where we begin
People round the world
Fightin bout this and that
Can't ya see my little monkeys
That's not where it's at
We're only here once
So ya better make it good
That's the way you're supposed to do it
That's the way you should
Oh my children are completely out of your minds
Oh my children it's enough to make a ground man cry
You're not listening to me
You're not listening to me
In the end we're going to end up right back where we begin
Sometimes we are successful in deluding ourselves into believing the myth that we have the slightest clue...we don't
This is all I need to know about Jimi. He's a round-earther.
---------- Update ----------
TAE
All you have is now
This is all I need to know about Jimi. He's a round-earther.
---------- Update ----------
I know ...such a square....er I mean rounder
TAE
All you have is now
Well in order to "keep up with this thread" you have to start at the beginning...........I guess you tried the cliff notes...
View attachment 100206
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
I almost forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
Trump tax plan for 'average Americans' would mainly help richest 1%, study finds | US news | The Guardian
What else did we expect...
What else did we expect...