War Room Lounge v61: Fun Fact: 'Race Bannon' describes two different individuals in Orbit Trump

[EGarrett]

"With a fuckin pencil."

That's right, Limbo Pete, break down again and go back to your little pictures. You tried to make a point that I quoted you, I linked you to where you referenced me first, and that was instantly the end of that.

You just don't know enough man and can't make good points. It's not even interesting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, and @Jack V Savage put me on ignore because I showed him the proper definition of ad hominem (he admitted I corrected him), showed him the proper definition of the term "corruption" when he tried to claim Hillary Clinton wasn't corrupt (he ran from that and started trying to reply without quoting me), then he tried to cite a study on something-like vote rigging, I looked over the paper, saw that he didn't know what he was talking about, asked him how sure he was that he understood the argument, and he ran away permanently.

He now tries to lie about it and claim I'm a troll. I just repeatedly dismantled his points. And like I said, I have a very good memory, I know what I did to each of you.

You can respond to me directly, bud. It goes without saying that your posited motivations are absurd, but I'd love to see the links so I know what you're even basing this stuff on.

 

[EGarrett]

Could you please link us to the exchange with Jack V Savage? I am interested.

Here's the one where he learned the definition of corruption.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/breitbart-veritas-coordinated-political-disruption.3377715/page-4

I did this to him several times until he got really uncomfortable and made-up an excuse to block me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here's the one where he learned the definition of corruption.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/breitbart-veritas-coordinated-political-disruption.3377715/page-4

I did this to him several times until he got really uncomfortable and made-up an excuse to block me.

Well, here we can see clearly that you're lying, no?

Let's see where you're getting weird "ad hominem" claim now. I have no recollection of what that could even be based on, but I can say with certainty that it's not being represented accurately.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's right, Limbo Pete, break down again and go back to your little pictures. You tried to make a point that I quoted you, I linked you to where you referenced me first, and that was instantly the end of that.

You just don't know enough man and can't make good points. It's not even interesting.

*EGarrett shows up after being declared legally dead 900 years ago*
"Fools! I was hiding under the bed all along! And you didn't even see it coming!"

 

[EGarrett]

You can respond to me directly, bud. It goes without saying that your posited motivations are absurd, but I'd love to see the links so I know what you're even basing this stuff on.

Oh I can, "bud?" Actually you ran away and blocked me years ago. That's why I wasn't responding to you directly. You know how much I batted you around and how uncomfortable and hesitant you got when talking to me.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Well, here we can see clearly that you're lying, no?

Let's see where you're getting weird "ad hominem" claim now. I have no recollection of what that could even be based on, but I can say with certainty that it's not being represented accurately.

I wonder what his blood pressure is

 

[Fawlty]

In case ya'll missed it before the dump, @WarDosAnjos got busted also trolling on 4chan/pol

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/222798881/went-to-my-local-lgbtq-rally

How is that any more likely than the 4chan troll who "found" that having been the one who cross-posted it?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh I can, "bud?" Actually you ran away and blocked me years ago. That's why I wasn't responding to you directly. You know how much I batted you around and how uncomfortable and hesitant you got when talking to me.

People who even occasionally make serious efforts to make good arguments (even if I think they come up short, like @waiguoren) are the people I don't ignore. In this thread, you come and start spamming dumb attacks and people, and it drags the whole thing down. That's the kind of thing that would earn you a spot. Your own link refuted one of your claims. What about the others?

 

[EGarrett]

Well, here we can see clearly that you're lying, no?

Let's see where you're getting weird "ad hominem" claim now. I have no recollection of what that could even be based on, but I can say with certainty that it's not being represented accurately.

Oh good, why don't you pick up where you ran away in that thread. You came in with an improper understanding of the term corruption, I showed you that it included dishonesty and I could demonstrate that by showing contradictions (among other things) in Hillary's words, and you tried a strawman argument which I immediately pointed out, then you magically disappeared from the exchange.

Here's a screenshot for you...

 

[Limbo Pete]

People who even occasionally make serious efforts to make good arguments (even if I think they come up short, like @waiguoren) are the people I don't ignore. In this thread, you come and start spamming dumb attacks and people, and it drags the whole thing down. That's the kind of thing that would earn you a spot. Your own link refuted one of your claims. What about the others?

Now remember, this is a guy that sleeps under beds, not on them

 

[waiguoren]

Here's the one where he learned the definition of corruption.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/breitbart-veritas-coordinated-political-disruption.3377715/page-4

I did this to him several times until he got really uncomfortable and made-up an excuse to block me.

I hope you can do better than that. You accused Clinton of corruption but didn't give any examples besides some flip flops, Wall Street speeches, and alleged inconsistencies between her medical record and her "claims". It's a huge stretch to attribute a politician's flip flops to corruption without further context, in my opinion. The Wall Street thing could be a form of a corruption but you didn't spell it out. The medical thing is so vague I don't know how to characterize it.

 

[Sycho Sid]

What is happening in here?

 

[Fawlty]

I hope you can do better than that. You accused Clinton of corruption but didn't give any examples besides some flip flops, Wall Street speeches, and alleged inconsistencies between her medical record and her "claims". It's a huge stretch to attribute a politician's flip flops to corruption without further context, in my opinion. The Wall Street thing could be a form of a corruption but you didn't spell it out. The medical thing is so vague I don't know how to characterize it.

This is a good direction for this to take.

 

[waiguoren]

What is happening in here?

Welcome back. We missed you. What did you do to earn the moderators' punishment? Have you been a naughty boy?

 

[Lead]

What is happening in here?

Shh.. just watch

 

[Sycho Sid]

Welcome back. We missed you. What did you do to earn the moderators' punishment? Have you been a naughty boy?

I let me temper get the best of me and told a poster what I really thought of them. It broke the rules, so I got yellows. Not long left on them though.

 

[EGarrett]

People who even occasionally make serious efforts to make good arguments (even if I think they come up short, like @waiguoren) are the people I don't ignore. In this thread, you come and start spamming dumb attacks and people, and it drags the whole thing down. That's the kind of thing that would earn you a spot. Your own link refuted one of your claims. What about the others?

^^^ Notice that Jack doesn't actually try to debate, he just declares that the argument was bad and is digging his escape route again.

I showed you the definition of corruption, which you clearly didn't actually know, and I outlined a list of her inconsistencies that I could would go into, and you made a few attempts to get around it with strawman arguments, then you magically disappeared.

There was no trolling, no spamming, you're just lying to try to save face. You got owned repeatedly on basic terms and if you leave me off ignore I'll go back to doing it to you.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Shh.. just watch

I was already having a pretty good day, too

Spoiler

 

[EGarrett]

I hope you can do better than that. You accused Clinton of corruption but didn't give any examples besides some flip flops, Wall Street speeches, and alleged inconsistencies between her medical record and her "claims".

Corruption includes dishonesty, and you included yourself a list of examples, Jack ran away before I went into any more details.

It's a huge stretch to attribute a politician's flip flops to corruption without further context, in my opinion. The Wall Street thing could be a form of a corruption but you didn't spell it out.

Jack ran away from me every time. If he really thought that he could nail me on something he would've stuck around, because I don't back down from any debate. It never worked out for him and if he tries again, you'll see it won't.

The medical thing is so vague I don't know how to characterize it.

As I recall it was in reference to her collapsing at the September 11th Memorial, where she claimed it was due to heat stroke and her own husband contradicted that.

 

[Limbo Pete]

^^^ Notice that Jack doesn't actually try to debate, he just declares that the argument was bad and is digging his escape route again.

I showed you the definition of corruption, which you clearly didn't actually know, and I outlined a list of her inconsistencies that I could would go into, and you made a few attempts to get around it with strawman arguments, then you magically disappeared.

There was no trolling, no spamming, you're just lying to try to save face. You got owned repeatedly on basic terms and if you leave me off ignore I'll go back to doing it to you.

Spoiler