America Is Under Attack and the President Doesn't Care

[homersapien 11,373]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Fail. If you're allowed to base your claim on instances of issues that made it appear that he lacked intelligence, then damnit I can just point to instances (especially transactions) that show he is intelligent. So whose example prevails? 

Trump is a criminal now, based on dealings with banks and lawfully filing for bankruptcy. Did the SEC come down hard on him. Did federal prosecutors ever put him behind bars? Gosh you're delusional. 

Ok, Titan. I know you look up to him, it's ok. Yes. Within the context of this discussion. If you want to talk about a side issue, then "go start a new thread." Does that sound familiar too, you little puppet? You've literally provided nothing with your words, except acknowledging that Trump is intelligent, and now your obsessed with correcting yourself. 

 

You don't get to qualify a term in a way that fits what you'd like to purport, and then retroactively throw it into a conversation that didn't involve you.

Again, most humans possess at least a minimal amount of intelligence (to speak generally).  The question is whether or not Trump lacks intelligence relevant to his job as POTUS.  Clearly he does.

I didn't say Trump was a criminal.  I implied he has the intelligence of one.   I would think you - of all people - would respect that sort of subtle detail.

I respect Titan, even though we frequently disagree.  He's one of the few on here that I can respect, even when we do.  I consider him an intellectual equal which means I don't "look up" to him.  I look across at him.  You, on the other hand, I am inclined to look down at.  Not because I am necessarily smarter than you, but because I am older, more educated/experienced.  (And it doesn't help your case to act like an arrogant jerk.)

Finally, you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do on this forum and I can join any conversation I choose.  If you can't handle it, ignore me.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If someone opined you that Trump murdered Vince Foster, you'd heartedly agree also. Not because it's reasonable, but rather it's "anti-Trump." So what?

Excuse me, but you don't get to tell me what I think.  Who do you think you are, DKW? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I consider him an intellectual equal which means I don't "look up" to him.  I look across at him.  You, on the other hand, I am inclined to look down at.  Not because I am necessarily smarter than you, but because I am older, more educated/experienced.  (And it doesn't help your case to act like an arrogant jerk.)

Finally, you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do on this forum and I can join any conversation I choose.  If you can't handle it, ignore me.

Older - yes.

More educated/experienced? Probably not. You've no clue what I do. Who makes that kind of statement so blindly?

And no, you can't do whatever you want. It could "derail the conversation."  

[homersapien 11,373]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sure, the participants in the conversation can. But not someone (you) who comes out of left field.

The "subject" of intelligence? My gosh you're trying hard. 

I am a participate in the conversation.  That you cannot handle my contributions is your problem, not mine.

Yes, intelligence is a very complicated subject.  That's sort of the crux of this dispute.  I am not really trying at all.  It's more like batting practice to me.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Excuse me, but you don't get to tell me what I think.  Who do you think you are, DKW? 

I do get to infer. 

But you get to tell me that you "look down on me" because you're older, and of the opinion that you're more educated and experienced than me. I guarantee that you would utterly fail if you tried to do what I do. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am a participate in the conversation.  That you cannot handle my contributions is your problem, not mine.

Yes, intelligence is a very complicated subject.  That's sort of the crux of this dispute.  I am not really trying at all.  It's more like batting practice to me.

I cannot handle your contributions??? ha! 

Watch out, the intellectual giant has come to play. If it's so complicated, then why such an easy determination for you? I mean, go look at my FISA comments in the other thread. tough subject. I didnt act like I had all of the answers. 

[homersapien 11,373]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So now you've equated Trump's intelligence with that of an animal. Sounds reasonable (not). 

Seriously? 

This is why it's impossible to have a serious discussion with you.  You cannot limit your perception of what others post to the actual content.  You have to extrapolate to something you can work with. 

We had another guy who "inferred" outrageous things from stratighforward statements.  He was ultimately banned from the forum.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously? 

This is why it's impossible to have a serious discussion with you.  You cannot limit your perception of what others post to the actual content.  You have to extrapolate to something you can work with. 

We had another guy who "inferred" outrageous things from stratighforward statements.  He was ultimately banned from the forum.

Is that a threat? It’s the smack talk forum.

I offered a very serious conversation on the FISA thread in the other forum. So to say we can’t have serious discussions is not correct. 

[homersapien 11,373]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm the one concerned with the minor details? Excuse me but are you not the one who dissects single sentences/phrases from lengthy exchanges and proceed to combat the sentence/phrase? You did it just the other day on another thread. Don't even try to deny it. Even in this case, you've grabbed the single word of "intelligence" and picked an argument based on your perceived definition of it. You're literally trying to take the thread to a place of defining "intelligence" such that Trump indeed lacks it, even though you said "it's not that Trump doesn't lack intelligence." Good grief. Give us all a break. Your role model Titan doesn't do this. I disagree with him often, but the man is intelligent. Don't be an insult to him. 

A declarative sentence within a post is hardly a "minor detail".

And you are getting tangled up in your own web of pendantic arguing. I am not picking an argument.  I am supporting the argment that Elli made that Trump lacks intelligence. 

You are the one who insists that because Trump can accomplish any given thing, he doesn't lack intelligence.  It's the equivalent of saying Trump can tweet, so he is intelligent, whereas I say the contents of those tweets indicates he lacks emotional intelligence (at least).

You are desparately trying to over-simply the argument because you cannot "win" it otherwise.  

It's obvious to me what Elli meant.  You are the one trying to dispute her obvious point by over-simplification of what she meant by intelligence.  That's a pedantic approach, which you continue to compound. 

[homersapien 11,373]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Older - yes.

More educated/experienced? Probably not. You've no clue what I do. Who makes that kind of statement so blindly?

And no, you can't do whatever you want. It could "derail the conversation."  

I've got 48 years of life experience on you.  Trust me, that makes me more educated and experienced than you are.  If you don't see that, it only makes my point.

[homersapien 11,373]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Is that a threat? It’s the smack talk forum.

I offered a very serious conversation on the FISA thread in the other forum. So to say we can’t have serious discussions is not correct. 

No it's not a threat. (It would be if I could ban you though.)

You are a rhetorical tar baby.  There's no position you cannot obfuscate with pseudo-intellectual blather.

You are also too insecure not to have the last word.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A declarative sentence within a post is hardly a "minor detail".

And you are getting tangled up in your own web of pendantic arguing. I am not picking an argument.  I am supporting the argment that Elli made that Trump lacks intelligence. 

You are the one who insists that because Trump can accomplish any given thing, he doesn't lack intelligence.  It's the equivalent of saying Trump can tweet, so he is intelligent, whereas I say the contents of those tweets indicates he lacks emotional intelligence (at least).

You are desparately trying to over-simply the argument because you cannot "win" it otherwise.  

It's obvious to me what Elli meant.  You are the one trying to dispute her obvious point by over-simplification of what she meant by intelligence.  That's a pedantic approach, which you continue to compound. 

You say he lacks intelligence based on some of his public comments. I say he possesses it based on some of his successful ventures. 

To threaten being banned is quite ridiculous Homer. If you'd like to start a private message with Titan and me, by all means feel free. 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am a participate in the conversation.  That you cannot handle my contributions is your problem, not mine.

Yes, intelligence is a very complicated subject.  That's sort of the crux of this dispute.  I am not really trying at all.  It's more like batting practice to me.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

24 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I do get to infer. 

But you get to tell me that you "look down on me" because you're older, and of the opinion that you're more educated and experienced than me. I guarantee that you would utterly fail if you tried to do what I do. 

You can infer all you want.  But you cannot insist that your inference is more correct than my clarification of what I was thinking.

Clarification negates implication.  You don't get to retaina false inferences once the implication has been clarified.   (Unless you are DKW.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You are a rhetorical tar baby.  There's no position you cannot obfuscate with pseudo-intellectual blather.

A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is.

And apparently I'm the jerk... 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

You can infer all you want.  But you cannot insist that your inference is more correct than my clarification of what I was thinking.

Clarification negates implication.  You don't get to retaina false inferences once the implication has been clarified.   (Unless you are DKW.)

Why do you bring up @DKW 86?

[homersapien 11,373]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You say he lacks intelligence based on some of his public comments. I say he possesses it based on some of his successful ventures. 

To threaten being banned is quite ridiculous Homer. If you'd like to start a private message with Titan and me, by all means feel free. 

I didn't threaten you.  I don't have the power to do so.

The only reason I brought it up was that your style reminds me so much of this guy.  I am sure that others who remember him would agree.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is.

And apparently I'm the jerk... 

Exactly.  Congratulations, you interpreted that one correctly!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  Congratulations, you interpreted that one correctly!

I do know more about the law than you do. That's a fact. I hate to bring it up again, but you did think corporations weren't citizens simply because they cannot vote. (that one will never get old). But not to get too far off topic... 

You apparently know more about judging one's intelligence simply by reading their twitter page. I'll give you that. Maybe I should spend more time on twitter? How do you suggest I become more proficient in scholarly and artistic activities as it pertains to judging intelligence based on twitter feeds? 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why do you bring up @DKW 86?

He called me a liar for correcting a false inference he had of my position.  Specifically, he claimed I stated Trump would be impeached specifically for colluding with the Russians.  I asked him to produce that statement, which of course he could not, since I never said that.  

He then claimed I simply inferred by the total of my comments on the subject.   I think apologized for that incorrect inference as I never meant imply I believed that either.

So, he refused to accept my clarification and continued to insist I was lying about something I never said nor intended to even imply.

Think about that. 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I do know more about the law than you do. That's a fact. I hate to bring it up again, but you did think corporations weren't citizens simply because they cannot vote. (that one will never get old). But not to get too far off topic... 

You apparently know more about judging one's intelligence simply by reading their twitter page. I'll give you that. Maybe I should spend more time on twitter? How do you suggest I become more proficient in scholarly and artistic activities as it pertains to judging intelligence based on twitter feeds? 

Please don't start down that rabbithole. I conceded that for certainl legal considerations, corporations can be treated as the legal equivalent of citizens.

But common sense tells you that corporations are not literal citizens who exist in the flesh and can cast votes (for example).  But revel in your "victory".  Everytime you bring it up I am reminded of how insecure you are.

Actually, I think you should spend more time reading Trump's tweets if you plan to argue how he doesn't lack intelligence.  

 

[homersapien 11,373]

22 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

  Well, I wouldn't call that batting practice but it's a witty response.  

Serves me right for engaging a tar baby.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Everytime you bring it up I am reminded of how insecure you are.

Actually, I think you should spend more time reading Trump's tweets if you plan to argue how he doesn't lack intelligence

I'm not insecure at all. You said the man didn't lack intelligence and I pointed it out. Now your panties are in a wad. 

If you're going to act all high and mighty and look down on me as one who possesses inferior in-depth knowledge and critical analysis on basic topics, then it's appropriate to remind you of instances which show that isn't necessarily proper. You decided to call into question my intelligence. I'm not going to waste time importing scholarly insight that does nothing other than put people to sleep. Nor do I have the time to do so. Hell, you don't do it either. And if you do, then damnit I want to see some peer reviewed citations!

Why do I have to rely on his tweets? Why don't you allow me to mention transactions he engaged in? 

.

[homersapien 11,373]

At your age, shouldn't you have a job?  

Personally, I have a hydraulic repair on my tractor that needs attention.  You'll have to play with yourself for awhile.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

At your age, shouldn't you have a job?  

Personally, I have a hydraulic repair on my tractor that needs attention.  You'll have to play with yourself for awhile.

I do. That's why I don't have time to provide the scholarly insight you request. I've been on my computer for most of the day so I get notifications when someone responds via a safari pop-up box. Though I admit, I've wasted too much time on here this Friday - but for you, i suppose it's just like any other. I enjoy "playing" with you Homer, probably to my own detriment because it takes away from doing things that actually matter.