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

What do you prefer? Pick one from each sequential pair. Or just click all over in mockery. Whatevs.

  • (Saving $50 on a purchase you waited for

    Votes: 10 27.0%

  • Finding a $50 in a seldom-used drawer)

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • (The first bite of a perfect steak

    Votes: 24 64.9%

  • The last bite of a perfect steak)

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • (Slipping on the ice cartoon-feet-style, but saving it

    Votes: 14 37.8%

  • Watching somebody else slip on the ice cartoon-feet-style, but not saving it)

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • (A hot shower when you're cold

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • A cold shower when you're hot)

    Votes: 11 29.7%

  • (Audrey Hepburn

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • Marilyn Monroe)

    Votes: 12 32.4%

  • (A cold shower with the woman you just picked

    Votes: 10 27.0%

  • A hot shower with the woman you didn't just pick)

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.
EGarrett said:
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...
Click to expand...

Yeah, you did not defend your assertion that Clinton is corrupt. You can try now, if you wish.
 
A wild Jack appears.
 
EGarrett said:
He could've argued that. I would've responded to whatever he tried to say. The issue though is that Jack thought he was clever and tried to use semantic arguments against other posters, which is why I did things like that to him. It made him very uncomfortable and he gave up trying to argue with me because his normal nitpicking (and attempts to cite obscure arguments or irrelevant studies) didn't work with me.

Unless I missed the quote (and Jack was known to try to reply without quoting me so I wouldn't see it), @Jack V Savage has run away yet again.
Click to expand...

Chill out. I took my daughter swimming for a bit. Surely you are not delusional enough to genuinely believe these characterizations, are you? And you must realize that everyone reading is familiar with my posting so the mischaracterizations don't work as deception either.
 
JDragon said:
@Lead we need a poll which plats status precisely needs revocation, there is a multitude of opinions
Click to expand...

There are different thoughts on whether we should push for big tent plats or pure plats. I for one am for the big tent plats so I will have to decline here.

I am not the least bit surprised a German is going the purity route.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Yeah, you did not defend your assertion that Clinton is corrupt. You can try now, if you wish.
Click to expand...
No, I outlined multiple examples and you ran away because you know it was hopeless and too easy for me to establish it.

You didn't bother to challenge me on the examples or on the standard, and what little attempt you made was paper thin, as I will show right now.

0hkmCkD.jpg


You tried a strawman argument, when you said "then everyone is corrupt," when in reality, the definition applies to people in power. So no, not everyone is corrupt, and it has significance because dishonest people are not fit to hold power, so corruption should disqualify them.

Do you at least understand that part?
 
I'm gonna dickwhip the CEO of eBay. I put up a few listings, and eBay tells me "hey fucker come check out this similar successful listing for tips breh" and so I do. Now eBay is sending me fucking personal emails asking if I'm still interested in buying this thing that is literally the same thing I have multiple seller listings for. Dickwhip. breh_
 
EGarrett said:
No, I outlined multiple examples and you ran away because you know it was hopeless and too easy for me to establish it.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see the goods, then.

EGarrett said:
You tried a strawman argument, when you said "then everyone is corrupt," when in reality, the definition applies to people in power. So no, not everyone is corrupt.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a "strawman" is, apparently. That's not a strawman. I'm saying that your definition is so expansive that it is meaningless. That's a true statement (and even if I were wrong, it's not a strawman).
 
Jack V Savage said:
Chill out. I took my daughter swimming for a bit. Surely you are not delusional enough to genuinely believe these characterizations, are you? And you must realize that everyone reading is familiar with my posting so the mischaracterizations don't work as deception either.
Click to expand...
Wow, you took your daughter swimming for 2 years? :) Since you also ran away from every discussion where you tried to debate me 2 years ago?

Your posturing won't work. I showed you above that you tried to mischaracterize the definition as applying to everyone when it says specifically that it applies to people in power. So we'll start there to establish the standard.

(you know already that you don't have a chance in this :) )
 
Two years and five lounge thread pages in the making
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,222
Messages
57,975,715
Members
175,889
Latest member
MEthzale

Share this page

Back
Top