Trump Announces Plans To Bring Back Fort ROBERT E. LEE

[Strike]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I admitted I was wrong that he “was planning” to testify for that particular hearing, but he did refuse to testify for a different one.  And he never did end up testifying since he got arrested, so technically you were never proven totally correct there.

You STILL won’t admit that you believed an incorrect CBS article about the kid in North Dakota…

Dude, you're backtracking now?  Just proving us all right AGAIN. 

[TimHauck]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude, you're backtracking now?  Just proving us all right AGAIN. 

Did he testify for the hearing in question?  Yes or no

[Strike]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Did he testify for the hearing in question?  Yes or no

That wasn't the discussion.  We were discussing whether he was scheduled to do so.  And I even linked to a copy of his opening remarks someone had gotten a hold of.  And you said that Billy in a gaming chat room said he wasn't going to testify and you believed him.  I got you to admit that Billy was wrong and my source was right.  The fact that he got arrested before he could testify doesn't change the discussion you and I were having and you trying to reframe it now is as pathetic as relying on Billy's chat messages was then.

[TimHauck]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

That wasn't the discussion.  We were discussing whether he was scheduled to do so.  And I even linked to a copy of his opening remarks someone had gotten a hold of.  And you said that Billy in a gaming chat room said he wasn't going to testify and you believed him.  I got you to admit that Billy was wrong and my source was right.  The fact that he got arrested before he could testify doesn't change the discussion you and I were having and you trying to reframe it now is as pathetic as relying on Billy's chat messages was then.

I admitted that I didn’t realize there were 2 different hearings, and that it did appear he was planning to testify for that one.  He did however refuse to testify for a different one.

Will you admit you believed an incorrect CBS article about the kid in North Dakota?

[Strike]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I admitted that I didn’t realize there were 2 different hearings, and that it did appear he was planning to testify for that one.  He did however refuse to testify for a different one.

 

As I said, you trying to reframe things NOW just proves us all right.  Keep it up;  you're doing great!!!!

[TimHauck]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

As I said, you trying to reframe things NOW just proves us all right.  Keep it up;  you're doing great!!!!

No that’s the same thing I said at the time.

Will you admit you believed an incorrect CBS news article about the kid in North Dakota?

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Normally...I would not spend too much time, but since you asked so nicely, and I have time to search through years of posts....lets just get down this road, shall we? 

Let's start with this post....

Now, you used the term "reportedly" as if you ingested that thought or position from some random source, but gave it enough credence to post about it.. Now while you backpeddal, spin it....reframe it....all that jazz, I will keep looking....since you are so sure you are impartial....

I said BOTH “reportedly” and “if confirmed.”  So yes, that means I wasn’t sure it was true.

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I like this one because you just beleive anyone with a blog is a "phd"....or that having a PHD matters...

But linking to a blog for your position?  What, was wikipedia down?

It was a blog that referenced multiple primary sources.  Not some dude in a Confederate soldier Halloween costume, holy sh1t.

@jerryskids was wrong in that thread, btw (yip yap!)

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Hold the phone.....I see a trend here...

OK, you little whiney b!tch.....you are in every thread asking over and over again link link? link? link..  like you have some perverted version o-f Tourette's...

And then when you get the link, yo just pretend it is not valid...

I am  sorry dood, that is a total b!tch move..

I ask for links because many here like to make sh1t up.

Most of the time they don’t provide any links at all (like @Horseman here).

Other times they provide nonsense like randos being interviewed on YouTube, like you and @Maximum 0verkill.  If someone provides an actual legitimate link I will acknowledge it, and read it.  I prefer to go to primary sources first, but I like to read opinions from both sides in order to come to an unbiased, data-based conclusion.

[Engorgeous George]

41 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Did he testify for the hearing in question?  Yes or no

Do you suppose there is a win here for you?

 

When you find yourself well over your head in a hole you can't climb out of it is time to stop digging.

[TimHauck]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Do you suppose there is a win here for you?

 

When you find yourself well over your head in a hole you can't climb out of it is time to stop digging.

I admitted I was wrong, since supposedly he planned to testify.

But we’ll never know if he actually would have.

[Engorgeous George]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I admitted I was wrong, since supposedly he planned to testify.

But we’ll never know if he actually would have.

The subject has changed from that specific to the general topic of whether engagement with you is ever fruitful.    You will perhaps notice that I rarely do engage you as it is evident to me that such efforts are not fruitful.  I go now back to my default position in regards to you.

[Meglamaniac]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The subject has changed from that specific to the general topic of whether engagement with you is ever fruitful.    You will perhaps notice that I rarely do engage you as it is evident to me that such efforts are not fruitful.  I go now back to my default position in regards to you.

LOL

That was the politiest STFU I've ever seen

[TimHauck]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The subject has changed from that specific to the general topic of whether engagement with you is ever fruitful.    You will perhaps notice that I rarely do engage you as it is evident to me that such efforts are not fruitful.  I go now back to my default position in regards to you.

I’m sorry to hear that.  I like most of your posts.  And perhaps you’ll remember I admitted I was wrong about something to you recently.  I admit when I’m wrong.  @Strike does not.

[jbycho]

Just now, TimHauck said:

I’m sorry to hear that.  I like most of your posts.  And perhaps you’ll remember I admitted I was wrong about something to you recently.  I admit when I’m wrong.  @Strike does not.

Idiot. 

[Strike]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I’m sorry to hear that.  I like most of your posts.  And perhaps you’ll remember I admitted I was wrong about something to you recently.  I admit when I’m wrong.  @Strike does not.

This is a flat out lie.  Heck, I did earlier this morning.  

[TimHauck]

Just now, Strike said:

This is a flat out lie.  Heck, I did earlier this morning.  

Will you admit you believed an incorrect CBS News article about the kid in North Dakota?

[Strike]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Will you admit you believed an incorrect CBS News article about the kid in North Dakota?

Just stop dude.  I just caught you in a lie.  Instead of acknowledging that FACT, you try for another one of your gotcha's that we've been through 50 times.  

[Meglamaniac]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Will you admit you believed an incorrect CBS News article about the kid in North Dakota?

 

[TimHauck]

40 minutes ago, Strike said:

Just stop dude.  I just caught you in a lie.  Instead of acknowledging that FACT, you try for another one of your gotcha's that we've been through 50 times.  

Congrats, you had to admit you were wrong about something you said you never said because you got shown receipts.  

Are you saying you’ve admitted 50 times that you believed an incorrect CBS article?   When it comes to being wrong about actual arguments, you do the same thing you’re accusing me of doing: either backtrack or move the goal posts.  Or just disappear from the thread and never return

[TimHauck]

35 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

 

Only because he won’t admit he got got by an incorrect lame stream media article 

[jbycho]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I didn’t lie. Are you saying you’ve admitted 50 times that you believed an incorrect CBS article?

Cool .

[Strike]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Congrats, you had to admit you were wrong about something you said you never said because you got shown receipts.  

Are you saying you’ve admitted 50 times that you believed an incorrect CBS article?   When it comes to being wrong about actual arguments, you do the same thing you’re accusing me of doing: either backtrack or move the goal posts.  Or just disappear from the thread and never return

Dude, just stop.  You are the worst poster at misinterpreting someone else's post.  I'm not getting in to something we've been through 50 times previously just because you are trying for a gotcha you've never been able to get.  You're coming off pretty horribly in this thread.  You should just drop things at this point. 

[RLLD]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I ask for links because many here like to make sh1t up.

Most of the time they don’t provide any links at all (like @Horseman here).

Other times they provide nonsense like randos being interviewed on YouTube, like you and @Maximum 0verkill.  If someone provides an actual legitimate link I will acknowledge it, and read it.  I prefer to go to primary sources first, but I like to read opinions from both sides in order to come to an unbiased, data-based conclusion.

No, you ask for links so you can pretend to care about how they formed their thoughts, but in reality you dont. You have settled on a position, and will not move from it, no matter what evidence is shown you.

That is why your next move is always " that link is not credible". And in some cases, it really isnt, but you do the same thing even when the link is credible...because is a reflex maneuveryou pretend it all way by refuting the position based on appeal to authority. To be fair, it probably one of the more commonly used logical falacies.

Now you may not like what other think, but refusing their view points in this way is not productive. Its narcissism,. 

[jerryskids]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

It was a blog that referenced multiple primary sources.  Not some dude in a Confederate soldier Halloween costume, holy sh1t.

@jerryskids was wrong in that thread, btw (yip yap!)

Well, it must be a day that ends in Y: You've tagged me in a thread I haven't read let alone commented in.  I did read the rest of the posts from here, and it seems you are off your meds again.  You seem like basically a good guy; please seek help.   

[TimHauck]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Dude, just stop.  You are the worst poster at misinterpreting someone else's post.  I'm not getting in to something we've been through 50 times previously just because you are trying for a gotcha you've never been able to get.  You're coming off pretty horribly in this thread.  You should just drop things at this point. 

OK I’ll just mark that down as you still refusing to admit you believed an incorrect CBS news article.

Back on topic, speaking of people coming off horribly in this thread, any comment on @Horseman claiming slavery wasn’t the primary reason for the Civil War or @Maximum Overkill saying it had nothing to do with it?

 

[TimHauck]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well, it must be a day that ends in Y: You've tagged me in a thread I haven't read let alone commented in.  I did read the rest of the posts from here, and it seems you are off your meds again.  You seem like basically a good guy; please seek help.   

Technically I didn’t really bring you into this thread, @RLLD did.  I made fun of him (and @Maximum Overkill) for using randos being interviewed on YouTube as their evidence.   RLLD claimed I did the same thing, and linked to the thread where you and I were arguing about HFCS vs sugar and I linked a “blog post.”   Interestingly you tried to discredit it at the time for being a blog post as well, yet it was from a PhD that cited multiple sources, whereas you just posted google results that didn’t back up your claims (your links just said HFCS is bad, I agree, my point was it’s not much different than sugar, sugar is bad too but your links did not compare the two).  Much different than a video of some guy playing dress up.

[Meglamaniac]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Technically I didn’t really bring you into this thread, @RLLD did.  I made fun of him (and @Maximum Overkill) for using randos being interviewed on YouTube as their evidence.   RLLD claimed I did the same thing, and linked to the thread where you and I were arguing about HFCS vs sugar and I linked a “blog post.”   Interestingly you tried to discredit it at the time for being a blog post as well, yet it was from a PhD that cited multiple sources, whereas you just posted google results that didn’t back up your claims (your links just said HFCS is bad, I agree, my point was it’s not much different than sugar, sugar is bad too but your links did not compare the two).  Much different than a video of some guy playing dress up.

Man you win a lot of internet arguments

[TimHauck]

8 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

Man you win a lot of internet arguments

Except if they’re about what football helmets are made out of 

[jerryskids]

12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Except if they’re about what football helmets are made out of 

and if calling a trans woman "he" automatically makes you bigoted.

[TimHauck]

18 hours ago, RLLD said:

No, you ask for links so you can pretend to care about how they formed their thoughts, but in reality you dont. You have settled on a position, and will not move from it, no matter what evidence is shown you.

That is why your next move is always " that link is not credible". And in some cases, it really isnt, but you do the same thing even when the link is credible...because is a reflex maneuveryou pretend it all way by refuting the position based on appeal to authority. To be fair, it probably one of the more commonly used logical falacies.

Now you may not like what other think, but refusing their view points in this way is not productive. It’s narcissism,. 

Let me know when the last time was you actually showed evidence that proved your point.  If people do post actual “evidence,” many times it doesn’t even say what they think it does (I know you have done this, as has @Strike in the Covid thread).

So in this thread, we have:

-You, who thought the 2024 economy was worse for the lower classes than 2008, “backed up” by randos being interviewed on YouTube that didn’t even say what you claimed

-People claiming slavery wasn’t the primary reason for the civil war, “backed up” by either some dude wearing a Halloween costume, or nothing at all.

And the person being attacked the most is me.  Gotta love the GC.

 

[jbycho]

50 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Let me know when the last time was you actually showed evidence that proved your point.  If people do post actual “evidence,” many times it doesn’t even say what they think it does (I know you have done this, as has @Strike in the Covid thread).

So in this thread, we have:

-You, who thought the 2024 economy was worse for the lower classes than 2008, “backed up” by randos being interviewed on YouTube that didn’t even say what you claimed

-People claiming slavery wasn’t the primary reason for the civil war, “backed up” by either some dude wearing a Halloween costume, or nothing at all.

And the person being attacked the most is me.  Gotta love the GC.

 

[Strike]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Let me know when the last time was you actually showed evidence that proved your point.  If people do post actual “evidence,” many times it doesn’t even say what they think it does (I know you have done this, as has @Strike in the Covid thread).

So in this thread, we have:

-You, who thought the 2024 economy was worse for the lower classes than 2008, “backed up” by randos being interviewed on YouTube that didn’t even say what you claimed

-People claiming slavery wasn’t the primary reason for the civil war, “backed up” by either some dude wearing a Halloween costume, or nothing at all.

And the person being attacked the most is me.  Gotta love the GC.

 

Yeah, none of us have the reputable sources you have like Billy in the gaming chat room to rely on!!! 

[TimHauck]

Just now, Strike said:

Yeah, none of us have the reputable sources you have like Billy in the gaming chat room to rely on!!! 

Or your incorrect CBS articles 

[seafoam1]

Robert E Lee is so part of this wonderful country. Honor him. 

[Strike]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Or your incorrect CBS articles 

At least you don't deny using Billy as a source.  How pathetic is using a gaming chat room as a source for information? 

[seafoam1]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

At least you don't deny using Billy as a source.  How pathetic is using a gaming chat room as a source for information? 

ronartest uses Reddit for God's sake. 

It's liberal career dishwashers quoting liberal career dishwashers as a source of fact.