Are we here to debate or not?

[homersapien 12,898]

This thread may be starting with a personal subject, but I think the general topic is something worth considering. Who knows, it might even improve the forum? 

 

As you might have noticed, David and I have a dispute that started well over a year ago.  Here are the facts:

FACT 1)  I made the following statement in the referenced thread:

8:42PM 7-15-17

Thread: Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government
Started by Auburnfan91, Wednesday at 07:41 PM

Homer:  ..... It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.

And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

(Note: The above quote was provided by David himself here:  https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/164137-the-kavanaugh-battle-is-the-culmination-of-unanswered-leftist-kulturkampf/?page=2

Thanks David for pulling that up.  I know it's not easy.

 

FACT 2) At some point later in time, David insisted I specifically said:  The Republicans will impeach Donald Trump  because of Russian Collusion.

I responded no DKW, that's not accurate, I didn't say(write) that nor did I mean to imply that.  All true.

David then called me a "liar".  I asked him to produce the actual quote which proves it.  Of course he could not, and it went on like this for some time - David: you are liar, you said it.  Homer: no I didn't. Produce the quote if this is why you say I'm lying.  No quote.

 

FACT 3) I wrote David a PM and suggested that even though he thought I said that, or even inferred I meant to say/write that, I didn't. I felt he owed me an apology -you don't call people a "liar" for what you think or inferred they meant.

I have also explained to David many times that he was also wrong in his inference, if that's the case. 

In fact, I explained what I was thinking - the Republicans will realize at some point Trump has become a political and policy liability and will decide to dump him, but not before the midterms. I also think the reason(s) will be for something other than Russian "collusion" which would be impossible to prove IMO.  My guess is will be something related to a financial scandal like tax fraud or the emoluments clause, maybe something to do with a tariff war.

I can also go back and document various time I have explained this.

 

FACT 4)

David still refuses to back down and continues to insist I was lying about what I literally wrote.  I can go back and document this also.  He's doubled down on the "literal lie" theory for months.

(Please note the above quote which David now presents as "proof" - does not support his claim either. )

Now he continues to call me a liar and a weasel specifically because I refute I wrote - or meant - what he said:  the Republicans will impeach Trump because of Russian collusion. 

But I am correct and he is wrong. I never said that.  Nor did I mean to imply it.

(Whether or not it's fair for David to have inferred I meant it is completely different question, one which he seems eager to pursue, in spite of my explanations of why he's wrong about this also.)

(I should note here that I have said Trump and/or his campaign are guilty of collusion, IMO - accepting the meeting where Clinton dirt was offered is enough for me.  But that's not the same as saying he is can be indicted for conspiracy or that successful case for impeachment can be made for it.  That's exactly why I have gone out of my way to not say or predict he would be impeached for collusion.)

Lately, David has changed his argument to suggest he did mean I implied what he claims instead of actually writing it.   He's apparently only not starting to shift this different argument that I was implying what he said.

Due to this apparent, long awaited shift in argumentation I have asked David the following straightforward question several times:

1. Do you still claim that I literally wrote the statement I am deny writing? or,

2. Have you changed your position to I implied that's what I really meant? 

David has refused to provide a straightforward response to these simple questioins.  He responds with versions of me still lying and weaseling and throws in an insulting gif for good measure. Obviously, I can document this also. Won't have to go far for that.

 

That's where we are.

 

So again, I am asking David:

1. Do you still claim that I literally wrote the statement I am deny writing? or,

2. Have you changed your position to your inferring that's what I really meant?  In other words, I implied it?

If he can manage a straightforward respond to those questions without obfuscating and attacking, we'll take it from there.  

And - as always - a public apology is not required, you can PM me as you wish.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

@DKW 86, I think this deserves an answer and then this entire argument needs to go away.  I've seen you guys snipe at each other over it for long enough.  If you have proof/quotes backing your original contentions about him, then you should produce them.  If not, you should clarify what you are now arguing.  And if you were wrong, you should admit it and move on.

[DKW 86 8,235]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

1)  I made the following statement in the referenced thread:

YOU ARE ONLY USING PART OF THE FULL QUOTE, YOU RESPONDED TO 91 ABOUT COLLUSION IN A THREAD ABOUT COLLUSION.  You purposely removed the Quote from 91 you are responding to....Lie#1

8:42PM 7-15-17

Thread: Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government
Started by Auburnfan91, Wednesday at 07:41 PM

Homer:  ..... It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.

And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

(Note: The above quote was provided by David himself here:  https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/164137-the-kavanaugh-battle-is-the-culmination-of-unanswered-leftist-kulturkampf/?page=2

You are trying to tell everyone here this crazy story in a response to a quote ABOUT COLLUSION, in a three page thread ABOUT COLLUSION, you changed topic in mid-thought without explaining yourself nor letting anyone know. REALLY??? REALLY??? Sorry, I am not that stupid. Or maybe you woke up and now understand how crazy the whole collusion crap was and now want to walkaway from the statement. We all understand letting discourse get away from us in the heat of the moment. I have graciously offered to let you off the hook on this. You doubled down on this crazy story about changing direction for one sentence and one sentence only in a 3 page thread. Or maybe you just found a weasel way out of embarassing yourself. Personally, after knowing you for this long, I DO NOT BUY IT, NOT FOR A SECOND. Lie #2

2) At some point later in time, David insisted I specifically said:  The Republicans will impeach Donald Trump  because of Russian Collusion.

I responded no DKW, that's not accurate, I didn't say(write) that nor did I mean to imply that. 

And i called BS on your Statement. homey, just because you say something, doesnt mean that the rest of us buy a word of it. Again, FOR THE RECORD, IN CASE YOU STILL HAVENT NOTICED, I DO NOT BUY ONE WORD OF THE EXCUSE YOU ARE MAKING. NOT ONE WORD.

We have discussed this ad nauseum. THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE REALLY ARGUING STATE OF MIND HERE AND NEITHER OF US CAN PROVE ANYTHING about what you wrote back then in a three page thread ABOUT COLLUSION, responding to another poster ABOUT COLLUSION over a year ago. I cannot prove what you were thinking although I do have a three page thread and a response to quote from you about the ongoing subject: COLLUSION. You literally have nothing.

1)You cannot PROVE you werent shooting your mouth off and went too far.
2) You also cant PROVE you changed the subject for one sentence in a three page thread about COLLUSION while quoting another poster about COLLUSION. 
3) You cant PROVE you didnt make all this up, ex post facto.

3) I wrote David a PM and suggested that even though he thought I said that, or even inferred I meant to say/write that, I didn't. I felt he owed me an apology -you don't call people a "liar" for what you think or inferred they meant.

I am not apologizing to someone i 100% think and believe to be lying their face off. I consider you to be lying to the entire forum now about what you were talking about, not just lying, but grandstand lying. 

In fact, I explained what I was thinking BS- the Republicans will realize at some point Trump has become a political and policy liability and will decide to dump him, but not before the midterms BS . I also think the reason(s) will be for something other than Russian "collusion" (You may have sobered up on this point. There never was a case to be made for Collusion at any point. Never. The DNC Leadership said so time after time after time after time, after time after time...ad infinitum.) which would be impossible to prove (because there never was any real proof ever.) IMO. My guess is will be something related to a financial scandal like tax fraud or the emoluments clause, maybe something to do with a tariff war.

From Day One in the Crazy Collusion Story, DF, MW, VJ, et al stated publicly that "There is no 'there' there." That they had read everything and seen everything and that there was just nothing there. I have correctly called homey out on this dozens and dozens of times and to be quite blunt about it I have relished rubbing homeys face off in this and will continue to do so. I am trolling him as bad as I can on this and will continue to do so. 

Explaining a lie is still explaining a lie. If you are paying attention, homey is now quoting myself and others on this. We predicted the financial angle might be an avenue for removal while homey was off talking the crazy talk about COLLUSION. It was stated by myself and others that the only chance, slim as it was, that Trump could be impeached was for financial dealing, possibly overseas financial dealings. So far, the financial trouble found by Mueller has been for stuff prior to the campaign. 

4) David still refuses to back down and continues to insist I was lying about what I literally wrote.  I can go back and document this also.  He's doubled down on the "literal lie" theory for months.

Okay i will clarify but not apologize here. I clearly read into to what you wrote what you meant at the time. Taking the whole of the three page thread and the quote you responded to, I have talked about what i BELIEVE what you CLEARLY MEANT. Maybe you were writing sloppy as hell?
1) You say you changed subject <FER> in the middle of a three page thread about COLLUSION while quoting another poster about COLLUSION and DID NOT CLARIFY your thoughts. (I personally believe this to be the biggest BS story told on this forum in 2018.) I graciously give this about 5% chance of ths possibly-maybe being true.
2) I do believe that any writer that was trying to change a subject as you "say" you were would have gone the extra mile to be clear about it. You did not. Literally, as in word for word, you didnt write that Trump would be impeached for Collusion and I just a strongly believe you are weaseling on what you did write. I still 100% believe you were talking about Collusion. 

Now he continues to call me a liar and a weasel specifically because I refute I wrote - or meant - what he said:  the Republicans will impeach Trump because of Russian collusion. 

But I am correct and he is wrong. I never said that.  Nor did I mean to imply it. BS! <smdh>

We finally get to the truth:

*****(I should note here that I have said Trump and/or his campaign are guilty of collusion, IMO - accepting the meeting where Clinton dirt was offered is enough for me.  But that's not the same as saying he is can be indicted for conspiracy or that successful case for impeachment can be made for it.  That's exactly why I have gone out of my way to not say or predict he would be impeached for collusion.)***

THE POINT: Guess what, homey's view of the Trump Campaign is in reality a reflection of my view of homey. It is really that simple. He refuses to believe that Trump and his campaign could be innocent of COLLUSION, even when the FBI & DNC have stated repeatedly for almost two years there was no evidence. For my part, after reading a three page thread, and watching homey respond to a quote I still think it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that he is lying thru his teeth. 

Homey doesnt care about Trump or the complete lack of evidence: Trump is guilty.
I really dont care to hear homeys BS anymore, I just do not believe homey. End of discussion. 

homey finally admits it. There was never any proof of anything near COLLUSION. The DEMS SAID SO and if you were listening or reading this forum you would have known that. The FBI has said many times over the last 2 years that "WE HAVE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN WAS AWARE THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS!!!!! ABOUT COLLUSION!!!!!" 

Recap: 
1) Did homey WRITE that he thought Trump would be impeached for Collusion? No, the sentence was vague at best. 
2) Did homey mean that he thought Trump would be impeached for Collusion, in a three page thread ABOUT COLLUSION, while quoting another poster ABOUT COLLUSION? YES, i believe 100% that that was what homey meant. I dont care if he denies it with his last breath, i still think he is lying about it. I will not apologize to those i believe are lying.

How anyone would be reading at this point I do not know. But...

For the record, I have tried and tried to disengage with homey on this. I think the 2 threads he has started and the countless threads he has ruined show him to be immature and petulant. One of the mods had to clean up one thread earlier. I have been asked to go "show up in Auburn" Saturday for some "middle school fight after the game" i guess. <FER> Whatever...

Want to know who is telling the truth here? Look on the forums and look at what he has posted over the last 2-3 days. No one on this board has been more openly vocal about their dislike for Trump than I except maybe Elle. I have disliked-hated Trump for 30 plus years. The day Trump announced, Titan and i replied to the first thread about it to say he was a clown in back to back posts. I believe Trump is business cheat. He has no morals, no integrity, no character, and no ethics. I have said this hundreds of times on this forum. Yesterday, homey again lied about me multiple times and accused me of being a Trump supporter. WTH? homey has actively lied about me about this for 2 years now. While I intensely dislike the misogynistic jackhole, I know we cant just accuse him of anything because we dislike the bastich. You cant let emotions get the best of you. Homey has long since gave up sanity on Trump. I dislike him, but i use reason and logic and facts why i dislike him. His financial messes, his bankruptcies, his treatment of women, etc. All factual reasons to dislike him. 

I am a Recovering Republican. 25 years of my life went to Conservative Values and Balancing the Budget. In 2005, I  finally saw that Bush43 and Hastert had zero commitment to reigning in spending. The wars were a national disgrace, Americans do not torture people. My social politics have changed dramatically as well. I am likely to the Left of most on this board socially. 

But with all that said, I am not a party hack. I am a free thinking, two sides of an issue kind of guy. I post up what I consider to be reflective articles. Articles that do not toe a party line and get defecated on more often than not by homey. 

Because I disagree with anyone here doesnt mean that I immediately assume they are evil. Everyone has their views and experiences. I am an Independent that is supporting Justice Democrats. Link at the bottom of the post. Thats who i am. I am not the guy ignoring all other facts and lying by calling him something he obviously is not. I am challenging him on thing he said that I HONESTLY do not believe he is telling the truth on.

Look how he reacts. 
Look how i reacted to being lied about
Thats all you need to know.

 

9

 

[homersapien 12,898]

I rest my case.

First, I have deleted no posts.  I used the quote David himself provided (and he deleted my comment thanking him for doing so.)

Secondly, after calling me a liar for a year over this, he finally admits I didn't write what he said I wrote.

And who the hell calls someone a liar because they infer something other than was stated?  Then that person tells you what they meant and you call them a liar?   Really?  You know more than they do about what they think?

David you have serious issues.  I may respond to something you post in the future, but I will never again engage you in a discussion. 

Titan, that's all I have to say about this. 

But please let this thread to stand. It can stand as a record of forum posters - from either tribe - who commit deliberate deception or misrepresentation and refuse to own up to it.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

This was to be a public discussion between two parties, and it repeatedly got derailed by the peanut gallery.

I normally would have told them to take this to PM but because the accusations were public I felt the debate and any apologies should be as well.  

That said, no one is giving any ground and the thread just needed to be locked.  Both of them need to drop the subject and quit lobbing this particular line of insult/argument at each other.  If either of you brings this subject up again or uses these accusations against each other in any other threads, you get a vacation.  If you want to keep sniping about it, do so privately and quit cluttering up other threads arguing about it.  No one cares.