War Room Lounge v106: Your thread was moved. That's basically the same as nazi book burnings.

[HereticBD]

I never lied about calling Tulsi a Russian asset. I said correctly that I hadn't said it in that thread precisely because I was trying to get away from the dumb semantic discussion.

No. That's just some word salad you've concocted, because you got busted lying and don't have the capacity to concede. Anybody looking at that conversation knows exactly what you were trying to do. You were trying to appear objective in your criticism of Tulsi, and denied calling her a Russian asset when accused. Then someone busted you, and quoted multiple posts with you calling her exactly that, and you've spouting this ridiculous "Oh' no, I wasn't lying. I just meant in this thread" bullshit.

Ain't nobody buying what you're selling, Jackie. You got busted lying. Not the first time. It'll be okay.

 

[tonni]

I'm an internationalist, and I don't support birthplace requirements. For the latter two....yeesh.



The US public can't handle your #MeToo politics.

Honestly if I ever get elected to any position of power, and it's filmed, this will be my speech

 

[Gregolian]

Have you texted back yet?

“Hard to change the delegate system when you drop out.”

 

[Prokofievian]

Gandhi cannot become president for the same reasons as @HereticBD and occasionally @Cunningham

Lol. ''occasionally.''

 

[Gregolian]

This isn't as boring as @franklinstower and @JudoThrowFiasco arguing over how ambiguous a sentence is for 200 posts, but it's close.

They just need to get it over and fuck already.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. That's just some word salad you've concocted, because you got busted lying and don't have the capacity to concede.

No, it's a pretty straightforward and unambiguous point. PS's own quoting of the thread showed that his claims were false.

 

[Quipling]

They just need to get it over and fuck already.

It's an ambiguous sentence. It can be interpreted in more than one way. I don't get why it's so hard to admit that something you wrote can have an alternative meaning you didn't intend.

Edit: and to bothsides the matter, judo's explanation doesn't help because it conflates ambiguity with alternative ways of saying the same thing (homonym v synonym)

 

[Prokofievian]

It's an ambiguous sentence. It can be interpreted in more than one way. I don't get why it's so hard to admit that something you wrote can have an alternative meaning you didn't intend.

Edit: and to bothsides the matter, judo's explanation doesn't help because it conflates ambiguity with alternative ways of saying the same thing (homonym v synonym)

Literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes.

 

[SBJJ]

Mike is going to be memorialized forever with this epic meltdown thread.

Him running to Crave takes it. And proudly screaming it

 

[HereticBD]

No, it's a pretty straightforward and unambiguous point. PS's own quoting of the thread showed that his claims were false.

No. You lied. You got busted. This is just your tried and true "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" defense.

You said you didn't call her a Russian asset, period. Nobody would ever assume you just meant you hadn't done it in that thread, because it's not a conclusion any rational person would come to. You were trying to appear neutral and objective, because you were accused of heavy bias due to the comments you have made about her in the past. You just weren't prepared for someone to look up your post history and post the multiple times you've made the claim you were trying to deny ever making.

You got busted, Jackie. The end.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Him running to Crave takes it. And proudly screaming it

Imagine what goes on in the mind that compels someone to fight so vigorously to put their "derp" on display like it's a badge of honor. Lot's of misplaced energy in that one.

 

[franklinstower]

This isn't as boring as @franklinstower and @JudoThrowFiasco arguing over how ambiguous a sentence is for 200 posts, but it's close.

I apologize for that and agree wholeheartedly. It was my mistake and I wont pollute a thread in that way again. This is not something I do, it is just something that got away from me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. You lied. You got busted.

No.

You said you didn't call her a Russian asset, period.

Here's the exchange:

I mean Hillary calling her a Russian asset was pure BS, but there is no way Tulsi is winning that lawsuit.

Well, Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that she's a favorite of Russia, both of which appear to be true statements.

And your proof for that is?

You're asking how we know that Republicans appear to be grooming her for a third-party and how we know that Russia likes her? For the first, there's the constant praise on Fox and Breitbart and for the second, there's positive RT and Sputnik coverage of her along with trolls.

Yes. I love war. Just the thought of people dying makes me happy. Ultra's known for scrupulous honesty in representing other people's views.

Granted Tulsi does get a lot praise from right wing news media, but that doesn't prove that the Republicans are grooming her for a third-party run. Let alone that she is a Russian asset.
So it's okay for you to accuse Tulsi of being a Russian asset, and therefore either a useful idiot at best, or a traitor to this country at worst, but it's not okay for someone on here to twist your words a little bit? LOL okay.

Well, I didn't accuse Tulsi of being a Russian asset, and twisting people's words does nothing good for discussions. It just really depends what you're here for. Some of us like to engage with ideas and develop our own thinking, and some people are just taking their anger out on the world or thinking that they can actually change people's minds by lying on an MMA forum. Takes all kinds, you know?

Nobody would ever assume you just meant you hadn't done it in that thread, because it's not a conclusion any rational person would come to.

See above.

You were trying to appear neutral and objective, because you were accused of heavy bias due to the comments you have made about her in the past. You just weren't prepared for someone to look up your post history and post the multiple times you've made the claim you were trying to deny ever making.

I was trying to focus the discussion and get away from the pointless semantic sidetrack. My post history is irrelevant.

 

[Trotsky]

@Prokofievian
I find not being able to quote prior lounge threads annoying. Still going strong, thanks for asking. Lent isn't observed on Sundays, which is why I'm posting again and checking up on notifications. Less time on Sherdog seems to be good for the soul.

As for your larger point, @Jack V Savage and I argued in the Tulsi thread. Anyone who cares enough can review the posts in question and judge between our positions. I'm not positive that @Sketch has the correct read on Jack or what, but I'm not interested in engaging with Jack on that topic anymore, since nothing productive or interesting was coming out of it.

Oof. That was an aggressively uninteresting exchange to read through. Seems like you were both wrong, though. JVS clearly was saying initially that he hadn't, in the context of that argument, called Gabbard an asset, so the other poster was choosing a different position to attack than the one he was at that moment taking (even if it was, as you demonstrated, a position that he did hold). Sort of like if I said "Trump is a more indecent person than Joe Biden" and you responded with "well, you think Hitler has more decency in him than Trump." The second statement is one that I think is more than likely true. But it's not the one I was making and that you're responding to.

Also, I think that he had called Gabbard an asset for the same reason that I previously had: because I misunderstood the meaning of "asset" as an intelligence term and thought it could be distinguished from "agent" as merely denoting perceived (unilateral) value rather than actual cooperation. Because it's also pretty clear, including in one of the posts you quoted, that he was saying she was an asset because Russia saw some value in her, not because she was consciously working with them. If he were capable of admitting misunderstanding, he'd probably concede as much.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Imagine what goes on in the mind that compels someone to fight so vigorously to put their "derp" on display like it's a badge of honor. Lot's of misplaced energy in that one.

haha. Make no mistake. I won this. I won this in the forum and in private aggressive messaging and bullied my way thru here.

We would NOT have any talk allowed and it would continued to be 100% censored if I did not raise the stink level and out the FACT that in no place in this forum was critical review of how the US Administration under Trump is handling this, had i not gone to war on this.

That cannot be denied. I got the censoring mod(s) to cave and the behavior changed. That is FACT.

It was shocking and shameful display of TDS that in not one place in this entire forum could you discuss the US Admin handling of this because a group of people here cannot tolerate anything critical of Trump.

 

[Gregolian]

I got accused of modding. I should get into streaming then right?

 

[HereticBD]

See above.

Yeah, you see that part where you denied calling Tulsi a Russian asset? That would be the lie you got busted on.

 

[Quipling]

Literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes.

 

[Curmudgeon]

haha. Make no mistake. I won this. I won this in the forum and in private aggressive messaging and bullied my way thru here.

We would NOT have any talk allowed and it would continued to be 100% censored if I did not raise the stink level and out the FACT that in no place in this forum was critical review of how the US Administration under Trump is handling this, had i not gone to war on this.

That cannot be denied. I got the censoring mod(s) to cave and the behavior changed. That is FACT.

It was shocking and shameful display of TDS that in not one place in this entire forum could you discuss the US Admin handling of this because a group of people here cannot tolerate anything critical of Trump.

Well now you're back in the c*nt pile!
@LogicalInsanity

 

[Scerpi]

haha. Make no mistake. I won this. .

This thread is hilarious