Crime Tulsi Gabbard put on terror watchlist

[Jack V Savage]

Jack is skilled with changing the terms of the argument, just don't let him off the hook and he'll come unraveled

You don't seem familiar with me at all. Remember that your whole meltdown in this thread was precipitated by me defending the practice of basing beliefs on evidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If that was the case, mah boyz Dennis Kucinich and Bernie would have been in Gitmo 15+ years ago.

Shit, Ron Paul was insane but he stood in Congress and told all his fellow conservatives what piece of shit war hawks they were. Rand was solid here as well.

If true, it's gotta be something else.

The whole thing is so silly. No one likes war. And it doesn't even make sense that Gabbard would be singled out by anyone.

 

[west42]

You don't seem familiar with me at all. Remember that your whole meltdown in this thread was precipitated by me defending the practice of basing beliefs on evidence.

Would you like to make a bet on Tulsa gabbard being on the terror watch list or not?
*7th ish time I've asked...
You're depleting your ammo stockpile Jack

 

[skysolo]

He's one of the people promoting this nutty claim.

It's based on the implausibility of her claim and her lack of general credibility, yeah. The other guy ran, but if you want to bet that something will come of this, I'm game.

My argument is that the claim is implausible and no credible source has come forward with it (at least that I'm aware of). Not sure where you're getting that other stuff or why it even matters. Let's say it's true that I have fragile emotions; it's still true that we haven't seen any credible reporting on this, and the claim is implausible. Still true that a reasonable person wouldn't believe something with good evidence.

Biden helped with the invasion of Iraq? And Greenwald was cheerleading for that same invasion when it happened. He's also been cheerleading for Russia's even worse invasion of Ukraine. But granted that someone with no power has limited responsibility. I think the designation is more about one's character, though.

You entire post is emotionally-driven partisan nonsense.

You say you want evidence but you apply it selectively. You don't even consider that maybe Gabbard is telling the truth. She is just a scumbag to you.

Bringing up Greenwald out of nowhere is a deflection and a double-standard.

Biden played a huge role in the invasion of Iraq that is still felt today. Millions killed and injured and NO ONE has ever been held accountable. You don't talk about the scumbag nature of this.

Biden being a senator and part of the decision-making process for the Iraq invasion isn't remotely comparable to Greenwald's actions as a journalist.

If you're going to call him a scumbag then you need to apply the same standard. There is no way on earth that you can justify this comment in terms of comparing a journalist to a senator who became VP then president.

Well, they're not scumbags by any reasonable definition (but I understand they have the wrong letter next to their name and are thus "scumbags" by an unreasonable definition).

The core issue here isn't just about individual character; it's about the impact of their actions. If we're going to talk about character and responsibility, let's not ignore the significant role Biden played in the Iraq war and the consequences that followed.

You should hold Biden to the same standard that you apply to Gabbard. Cause if you think she's lying then we should talk about Biden's lies which are numerous and blatant.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The whole thing is so silly. No one likes war. And it doesn't even make sense that Gabbard would be singled out by anyone.

Yeah, no one likes war but hawks always have an existential threat on hand. We'd rather not fight but the Soviets are gonna come kills us, if not it's the terrorists, if not it's Islamic extremists, if not it's the Chinese, etc.

But yeah, Tulsi is far from the first or most outspoken about war.

 

[Loiosh]

That literally isn't proof of anything

We know Gabbard is saying this is happening, she's saying it's political persecution and she's suing.

We also know she's now a conservative media persona in the employ of a propaganda network serving conservatives in their attacks on liberals, and this expression of the narrative increases her value in that position.

So, it's entirely possible all of this is actually happening, but there's every reason to be skeptical and question her version of the narrative.

It's an incredibly effective narrative. When Trump is prosecuted for crimes he very obviously committed and is convicted, having a history of four thousand lawsuits prior to his entry into politics, the conservative machine is happy to push the "lawfare" narrative. Guilt and innocence seem completely irrelevant. I work with conservative Canadians who absolutely believe Trump is being persecuted.

I suspect that no matter what truth is eventually revealed regarding Gabbard, all that conservatives will remember or discuss is the exact version of the narrative that best serves them.

For my part I'm not dismissing anything until we know more, not even her persecution narrative. I just don't think her version is likely.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Would you like to make a bet on Tulsa gabbard being on the terror watch list or not?
*7th ish time I've asked...
You're depleting your ammo stockpile Jack

I made the bet offer. I explained why your counter offer doesn't address the points of disagreement. Read it again and try to understand. Or, you know, you can make the same mistake again and throw out more childish personal attacks, but I won't respond.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You entire post is emotionally-driven partisan nonsense.

Again, that kind of personal thing has nothing to do with anything. Neither does your various "look over theres."

You say you want evidence but you apply it selectively. You don't even consider that maybe Gabbard is telling the truth. She is just a scumbag to you.

No, I want evidence period. I don't think any reasonable person is going to consider Gabbard's word to be evidence.

 

[west42]

I made the bet offer. I explained why your counter offer doesn't address the points of disagreement. Read it again and try to understand. Or, you know, you can make the same mistake again and throw out more childish personal attacks, but I won't respond.

I have no problem betting on your terms if you can find a post of me anything regarding winning a case against the government. I'm not going to bet on something I never said would occur nor argued would occur

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have no problem betting on your terms if you can find a post of me anything regarding winning a case against the government. I'm not going to bet on something I never said would occur nor argued would occur

OK, so we agree that Gabbard is probably lying.

 

[west42]

OK, so we agree that Gabbard is probably lying.

We don't agree on anything I never mentioned anything regarding whether she was lying or not. The only thing I've stated in this thread is that she is on the terror watch

 

[west42]

OK, so we agree that Gabbard is probably lying.

Regardless, good talk. It's been abpleasure

 

[MMA IAN]

Those crazy leftists with their new tactic of basing their beliefs on evidence! Will those handsome devils stop at nothing?!

Like you, I personally found it disgusting people accused Biden of being mentally compromised. I'm so glad you firmly stood up for him in the debate thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We don't agree on anything I never mentioned anything regarding whether she was lying or not. The only thing I've stated in this thread is that she is on the terror watch

Remember, the point of disagreement isn't whether a high-profile politician might face heightened scrutiny at airports (and obviously no one thinks she's actually marked as a potential terrorist); it's whether her claims that it's inappropriate and part of some kind of retaliatory action for being a Republican are true. And I think it's clear at this point that you have implicitly conceded that her complaints have no merit. I don't expect you to admit it, but I think you also realize that the "new leftist tactic" of basing beliefs on evidence is actually good.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

If only Jack showed the same interest in the Gaza thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If only Jack showed the shame interest in the Gaza thread.

What do you want me to say about it? I think war is bad. I guess that makes me a target now, according to the ridiculous CTers here.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

What do you want me to say about it? I think war is bad. I guess that makes me a target now, according to the ridiculous CTers here.

You think the Israelis carrying out genocide is bad? what's your opinion on the Biden admins role in facilitating it?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You think the Israelis carrying on genocide is bad? what's your opinion on the Biden admins role in facilitating it?

I don't think Israel is carrying on genocide. And I don't think Biden supporting an ally after they were attacked is "facilitating genocide." I don't really think Israel needs our funding anyway, and I'd be fine with withdrawing it, though. But regardless, they're going to defend themselves from attacks.

 

[skysolo]

Again, that kind of personal thing has nothing to do with anything. Neither does your various "look over theres."

You literally mentioned Glenn Greenwald out of nowhere and relation to nothing. You literally did the "look over theres" (whatever the hell that means).

I told you to stay on topic.

No, I want evidence period. I don't think any reasonable person is going to consider Gabbard's word to be evidence.

You don't apply the "I want evidence" to Biden. You have uneven application of evidence. You aren't consistent.

 

[SurferH2O]

You don't seem familiar with me at all. Remember that your whole meltdown in this thread was precipitated by me defending the practice of basing beliefs on evidence.

You base your "beliefs" on whatever the DNC tells you.

No one thinks you're a principled critical thinker Jack... that ship has sailed long ago.