- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,577
- Reaction score
- 16,655
Dumbest post I think I’ve ever seen.So,…..was ok with what was already ongoing.
Cool story, bro
Dumbest post I think I’ve ever seen.So,…..was ok with what was already ongoing.
Cool story, bro
So do you want to do an account bet on Tulsi being on the terror watch list or not? Its yes or no question. We can do this all dayGood lord. Your offer is dumb because it's an undefined term. There's no way to settle it. My offer was reasonable and addresses the actual point of disagreement, which is why you're running from it (you also realize that there's certainly more to the story than Gabbard or cheap propagandists like Taibbi are saying).
I am comfortable betting you. Let's bet that she will receive no judgment here.
So far, no credible sources have reported the story. Most likely scenario here is just that she's facing heightened security because of her high profile.A former congresswoman being the watchlist is a misunderstanding?
How low do you sink to defend these scumbags.
Read my post again.So do you want to do an account bet on Tulsi being on the terror watch list or not? Its yes or no question
Exactly what is undefined? Please list what you're saying is undefinedGood lord. Your offer is dumb because it's an undefined term. There's no way to settle it. My offer was reasonable and addresses the actual point of disagreement, which is why you're running from it (you also realize that there's certainly more to the story than Gabbard or cheap propagandists like Taibbi are saying).
I am comfortable betting you. Let's bet that she will receive no judgment here.
You just defend other scumbags like Biden and Harris.So far, no credible sources have reported the story. Most likely scenario here is just that she's facing heightened security because of her high profile.
You'd never in a million years see me sink to defending scumbags like Gabbard or Greenwald.
So far, no credible sources have reported the story. Most likely scenario here is just that she's facing heightened security because of her high profile.
You'd never in a million years see me sink to defending scumbags like Gabbard or Greenwald.
You're embarrassing yourselfRead my post again.
Again, I'm perfectly comfortable with you refusing my offer, as it just shows that you realize that she's probably lying.
The claim is that she is on a list for enhanced screening. That doesn't mean she's accused of being a terrorist. She might be getting enhanced screening for other reasons (related to being a high-profile politician, for example). I wouldn't argue against that. I think the claim that she's identified as a potential terrorist and/or that such alleged identification is some kind of retaliatory measure for her being a Republican or whatever is ridiculously implausible. Hence, the bet that identifies the point of disagreement is whether she receives some kind of judgment (people ITT have said that she's filed a lawsuit).Exactly what is undefined? Please list what you're saying is undefined
Okay so let's bet on her being on a list for enhanced screening. Yes or no?The claim is that she is on a list for enhanced screening. That doesn't mean she's accused of being a terrorist. She might be getting enhanced screening for other reasons (related to being a high-profile politician, for example). I wouldn't argue against that. I think the claim that she's identified as a potential terrorist and/or that such alleged identification is some kind of retaliatory measure for her being a Republican or whatever is ridiculously implausible. Hence, the bet that identifies the point of disagreement is whether she receives some kind of judgment (people ITT have said that she's filed a lawsuit).
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).You just defend other scumbags like Biden and Harris.
I really don't think your reading comprehension is up to par here. I'll respond if you show that you got what I said.Okay so let's bet on her being on a list for enhanced screening. Yes or no?
Yes or no? Do you want to make a bet on her being on enhanced screening?I really don't think your reading comprehension is up to par here. I'll respond if you show that you got what I said.
Yes or no? Do you want to make a bet on her being on enhanced screening?
This is like the sixth time I've asked you. Again sack up or shut up. Do you want to make a bet on her being on enhance screening? I'll keep replying to you for the next two weeks if you don't want to give a yes or no answerI really don't think your reading comprehension is up to par here. I'll respond if you show that you got what I said.
Dumbest post I think I’ve ever seen.
Disagreeing with foreign wars=terrorist
People in Gaza would say different.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).
Jack is skilled with changing the terms of the argument, just don't let him off the hook and he'll come unraveledPeople in Gaza would say different.
You are clearly a partisan. You deflected my argument and instead called Glenn Greenwald a scumbag. I don't even know how he was even brought into this conversation.
You quickly dismissed Gabbard's claim by labeling it a misunderstanding or a fabrication. You have no evidence to say this. Your dismal is based on your view of her since you called her a scumbag.
You undermined your own argument by using personal attacks on her. I really have no love for her but you are showing your bias and fragile emotions.
You contradicted yourself by saying Glenn Greenwald is a scumbag while also defending Biden who has done real damage to this country. He wrote the crime bill. He helped with the invasion of Iraq. Nothing Greenwald has ever done even amounts to 1% of what Biden has done.
He's one of the people promoting this nutty claim.People in Gaza would say different.
You are clearly a partisan. You deflected my argument and instead called Glenn Greenwald a scumbag. I don't even know how he was even brought into this conversation.
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.You quickly dismissed Gabbard's claim by labeling it a misunderstanding or a fabrication. You have no evidence to say this. Your dismal is based on your view of her since you called her a scumbag.
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.You undermined your own argument by using personal attacks on her. I really have no love for her but you are showing your bias and fragile emotions.
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 contradicted yourself by saying Glenn Greenwald is a scumbag while also defending Biden who has done real damage to this country. He wrote the crime bill. He helped with the invasion of Iraq. Nothing Greenwald has ever done even amounts to 1% of what Biden has done.