Jump to content

#ReleaseTheMemo


WDG

Recommended Posts





  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

what is wrong with the consideration Tex? Have you ever ever considered anything then have someone change your opinion? I doubt with your all knowing heavyweight brain but many of us underling types have.

stated early on in this thread that it no big deal. mueller was not fired end of day. 

Considering quitely and ordering and being told to shove it are two different things where I’m from. Which was Alabama during saner times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

But the media have actively engaged in a feud with Donald Trump. Do you think it's responsible of the media to do everything they can to tear down political figures they don't like but shield political allies at the expense of the public? They want to control the narrative and decide what is important and what is less important to report. I think it does matter............

Of course not, but that's a different argument than what was being said and that I responded to.  

Incidentally, Fox does the same thing, only in reverse.

 

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I'd argue that liberal media outlets have more possible dirt on the Clinton's for the simple fact of having more access than say FOX News or some other conservative outlet. This wouldn't be the first time a liberal news organization has sat on a damaging story about Hilary Clinton.

NBC has sat on the full tape interview of Juanita Broadderick since 1999:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/153307-nbc-refusing-to-release-full-juanita-broaddrick-interview/

And while you're welcome to hold that opinion, it's still just supposition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

64 made a factual statement I agreed with. I stated as much and stand by it. You call it an excuse. Fine.

And I'm that bitching about the source isn't an argument and you'll get called out on it.

 

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

We will never agree on this and you run the forum. I'll bow out. Have a good night. 

Yes, I do run the forum along with TexasTiger, but that's not the point.  The point is, there's no reason to participate in a forum like this if all you can do is dismiss sources you don't like out of hand when they report news that makes your team look bad.  It adds nothing to the discussion.  Perhaps in the future I'll just delete such responses without comment so at least we won't have to go on one of these rabbit trails trying to explain to people why they need to do better in their responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You're nitpicking the NYT over a phrasing that was my fault.  He "ordered" him fired but evidently hadn't communicated that to Mueller yet, so in that sense it hadn't yet happened.  He backed down when his counsel threatened to quit.  It's a distinction without any meaningful difference.

It may not be a meaningful difference to you but to most people I think it is. Mueller is one........he still has his job last time I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

It may not be a meaningful difference to you but to most people I think it is. Mueller is one........he still has his job last time I checked.

Yes, but only because Trump's counsel threatened to quit.  I'm not sure how you can say it's this huge significant difference between:

1.  Thought about firing him but didn't.

2.  Fired him, but before he could communicate it to the person fired, someone else on the team threatened to quit, so he took it back.

Either way, he still has his job.  Explain to me why this is such a huge difference again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Considering quitely and ordering and being told to shove it are two different things where I’m from. Which was Alabama during saner times.

Confused tex....you mentioned three different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes, but only because Trump's counsel threatened to quit.  I'm not sure how you can say it's this huge significant difference between:

1.  Thought about firing him but didn't.

2.  Fired him, but before he could communicate it to the person fired, someone else on the team threatened to quit, so he took it back.

Either way, he still has his job.  Explain to me why this is such a huge difference again?

#2 could be considered obstruction, #1 not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, G8orH8or said:

#2 could be considered obstruction, #1 not so much.

Could be, but since he didn't end up following through, not likely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So there IS a difference.

I never said there was NO difference.  I said the difference between planning to fire him and firing him without actually following through or telling him , while backing down under threats of resignations from your legal team wasn't meaningful.  And it isn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I never said there was NO difference.  I said the difference between planning to fire him and firing him without actually following through or telling him , while backing down under threats of resignations from your legal team wasn't meaningful.  And it isn't. 

 

One example was just noted. Ignore it you want. The degree of difference may be arguable but there is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

One example was just noted. Ignore it you want. The degree of difference may be arguable but there is a difference.

One example said it "could be" obstruction.  I pointed out that was highly unlikely given that he never *actually* fired him. 

A distinction without a meaningful difference. 

And besides, you're still nitpicking semantics as if that's what matters.  Hint:  It doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this some Bugs Bunny psychology unleashed by Titan?  Maybe I need to go back and research a little more in the thread, but knowing the contributors' tendencies has me thinking it went like this:

PT: didn't obstruct Justice.  He didn't fire him so what's the big deal whether it was ordered or merely a thought.

TT: oh ho. There's no difference at all, and you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day Mueller still has his job.

PT: there's a difference and you can't tell me otherwise.

TT: I'm doing just that.  I'm telling you otherwise.  There's no difference and Mueller's still there.

PT: there's a difference and it's plain to see that Trump did obstruct Justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HVAU said:

Was this some Bugs Bunny psychology unleashed by Titan?  Maybe I need to go back and research a little more in the thread, but knowing the contributors' tendencies has me thinking it went like this:

PT: didn't obstruct Justice.  He didn't fire him so what's the big deal whether it was ordered or merely a thought.

TT: oh ho. There's no difference at all, and you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day Mueller still has his job.

PT: there's a difference and you can't tell me otherwise.

TT: I'm doing just that.  I'm telling you otherwise.  There's no difference and Mueller's still there.

PT: there's a difference and it's plain to see that Trump did obstruct Justice.

What's amazing to me is how this technique can work even on a written forum.   :rolleyes:  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

One example said it "could be" obstruction.  I pointed out that was highly unlikely given that he never *actually* fired him. 

A distinction without a meaningful difference. 

And besides, you're still nitpicking semantics as if that's what matters.  Hint:  It doesn't.

Works both ways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think even you know what the hell you're trying to say anymore.

Well it's hard with you most all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Well it's hard with you most all the time.

It would help greatly if you could at least keep track of your own arguments.  If you can't I don't know how in hell you expect anyone else to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It would help greatly if you could at least keep track of your own arguments.  If you can't I don't know how in hell you expect anyone else to.

It seems like I have that problem mostly with you so I will try to stop "arguing" with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

It seems like I have that problem mostly with you so I will try to stop "arguing" with you.

You have a problem stating things that make sense.  Me, being a person who appreciates things that makes sense and are logically coherent, have a problem understanding you. 

Maybe if you could fix that, we wouldn't need to put 'argument' in quotes when it comes to the things you say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You have a problem stating things that make sense.  Me, being a person who appreciates things that makes sense and are logically coherent, have a problem understanding you. 

Maybe if you could fix that, we wouldn't need to put 'argument' in quotes when it comes to the things you say.

 

It IS difficult "discussing" something with someone who thinks only their side makes sense. That's rather egotistical. But so be it. Through with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

It IS difficult "discussing" something with someone who thinks only their side makes sense. That's rather egotistical. But so be it. Through wit this one.

This isn't about sides, it's about you not making coherent arguments for your positions, then getting pissy when I or someone else points it out. This isn't on me, it's on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn't about sides, it's about you not making coherent arguments for your positions, then getting pissy when I or someone else points it out. This isn't on me, it's on you.

Of course it's on me. You are never wrong. But way off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...