WRL62

[EGarrett]

To be honest I don't have a sufficiently coherent position on how exactly a politician should act to comment much, but my impression of the public/private statement is that it's remarkably honest.

She was remarkably honest by secretly telling a group of Wall Street financiers who were paying her that she lies to the public?

Wouldn't it be more unusual if a politician really believed in every policy they publicly supported, or always and only supported policies for reasons of deep agreement? It's more surprising to me that should would say that out loud, which strikes me as tactically unwise.

I'm sure you can find dishonest moments in every politician, but there are some who are more honest than others. That's why I pointed out that hers was exceptional.

I'm sure she said many other disagreeable things in less-than-charismatic ways, though Jack would likely disagree. I'm not sure all of those even considered together earn her the corrupt label in the way post people would construe it, or made her a worse candidate than Trump.

(To be fair I'm sure you're not assessing her candidacy based solely on this charge.)

I'm not endorsing Trump lol.

 

[EGarrett]

But Jack could operate under your definition and criteria to point out his premise which was it can be applied to too many people for it to mean anything. He could still operate under those perimeters without having to accept your definition as his own.

He said it was an invalid definition, without meaning or significance, because it made everyone corrupt. Not everyone is engaging in corruption by that definition, and it's used because it implies that the people in power should be removed. He didn't say too many people to mean anything, he said everyone and he meant it, which is why he never even tried to salvage it or clarify, but instead just ran away.

 

[waiguoren]

Jack can't participate because he is of the position that the definition doesn't work because it can be applied to everyone even though it actually only applies to people in power. Jack is also completely wrong about that.

BTW I'm going to send you a PM.

Do you think Clinton has engaged in an abnormal degree of corruption under the standard definition, i.e.

inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
the corruption of government officials
Source

?

 

[Sketch]

How long will you be here? I'm actually having a conversation with some people, you're just following me and adding nothing.

This is my lounge thread, you are a guest, and quickly becoming a pest.

 

[EGarrett]

This is my lounge thread, you are a guest, and quickly becoming a pest.

These idjits are tagging, harassing, lying about and flaming people who left the board last year. So kindly GTFO with that pest crap.

 

[EGarrett]

Do you think Clinton has engaged in an abnormal degree of corruption under the standard definition, i.e.

inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
the corruption of government officials
Source

?

Well, you'd have to get into the Clinton Foundation and all the donations to it, and more about those Wall Street speeches. It's pretty clear but I don't feel like reviewing all of that and I don't think anyone else here does either.

 

[Fawlty]

These idjits are tagging, harassing, lying about and flaming people who left the board last year. So kindly GTFO with that pest crap.

How are you this evening?

 

[EGarrett]

How are you this evening?

You're now spamming in addition to your call-out thread.

 

[Fawlty]

You're now spamming in addition to your call-out thread.

I blame callout culture.

How would you describe your body to an interested party?

 

[Lead]

He said it was an invalid definition, without meaning or significance, because it made everyone corrupt. Not everyone is engaging in corruption by that definition, and it's used because it implies that the people in power should be removed. He didn't say too many people to mean anything, he said everyone and he meant it, which is why he never even tried to salvage it or clarify, but instead just ran away.

@Jack V Savage

When you made that comment, were you saying that the definition is too broad to be useful or that literally everyone is corrupt under that definition ("dishonesty by people in power")

 

[EGarrett]

@Jack V Savage

When you made that comment, were you saying that the definition is too broad to be useful or that literally everyone is corrupt under that definition ("dishonesty by people in power")

He was throwing out a broad and sloppy attempt at a counter-argument. He also tried to claim that changing your mind at any time (which is not dishonesty) is corruption by the definition. He was flat-out wrong which is why he hasn't tried to salvage it and just ran from the conversation multiple times.

"So changing one's mind at any time is "corruption" as you define it. OK. Everyone is corrupt, then, and the charge has no meaning or significance. In other words, you have nothing."

 

[EGarrett]

I blame callout culture.

How would you describe your body to an interested party?

How would you describe yours?

(Spoiler Alert: You can't argue anything and if you spam, I can spam back)

 

[Lead]

He was throwing out a broad and sloppy attempt at a counter-argument. He also tried to claim that changing your mind at any time (which is not dishonesty) is corruption by the definition. He was flat-out wrong which is why he hasn't tried to salvage it and just ran from the conversation multiple times.

"So changing one's mind at any time is "corruption" as you define it. OK. Everyone is corrupt, then, and the charge has no meaning or significance. In other words, you have nothing."

I tried to get clarity about your argument here. Now I'm trying to see Jack's in his own words here. He may want to restate or clarify something he said. This moves a conversation along.

 

[Sketch]

These idjits are tagging, harassing, lying about and flaming people who left the board last year. So kindly GTFO with that pest crap.

Stop whining

 

[EGarrett]

Stop whining

I could harass and flame you back and I'd do it better than you do, because you're not clever at all. But I'd rather watch you go nuts until you get yourself banned.

 

[Fawlty]

How would you describe yours?

I would describe mine as compatible with yours.

 

[EGarrett]

I would describe mine as compatible with yours.

No, you don't definitely measure up.

 

[waiguoren]

Well, you'd have to get into the Clinton Foundation and all the donations to it, and more about those Wall Street speeches. It's pretty clear but I don't feel like reviewing all of that and I don't think anyone else here does either.

So you'd rather have a long meta conversation without the opposing party even being present? What is your purpose? Are you trying to convince people that Jack V Savage has certain flaws? If so, I think you should know that everyone who posts here has interacted with him extensively and has their own opinion of him that you're unlikely to change.

 

[Sketch]

I could harass and flame you back and I'd do it better than you do, because you're not clever at all. But I'd rather watch you go nuts until you get yourself banned.

You seem confused. I don't think you understand how this works.

 

[EGarrett]

So you'd rather have a long meta conversation without the opposing party even being present?

These guys were literally talking about me, flaming me and lying about me a year after I left the board. So who is doing that? I actually reply directly to people, like Jack, and answer everything they bring up, and he then loses quickly and runs away. So he's the reason he's not present.

What is your purpose? Are you trying to convince people that Mr Jack has certain flaws? If so, I think you should know that everyone who posts here has interacted with him extensively and has their own opinion of him that you're unlikely to change.

What makes you think you're likely to change my opinion? What are you even posting about now? Seriously, if your concern is people posting only to "point out other people's flaws," there are a lot of other people you should be talking to right now, right?