What is on Hunter's laptop?

[Grumps 3,704]

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But they are not "facts" or "evidence" as you keep asserting.  They are conjecture.  Period.  The End.

 

Being open-minded is fine.  Being so open-minded your brain falls out on the floor is inadvisable.

And again, you don't understand the actual meanings of words such as "in fact."

You're on thin ice.  If you want to stick around to talk about the election in a few days, you better figure this "fact" vs "supposition" thing out like yesterday.

Here are some facts for you: It is fact that there are e-mails that show that Chinese officials that were paying Hunter Biden claim to have been introduced to Joe Biden. It is fact that Joe Biden said he never discussed Hunter's business dealings with him. It is fact that Tony B. claims to be an eyewitness to meetings between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden discussing business dealing with Chinese officials. It is a fact that there is an e-mail that lists "The Big Guy" as receiving "10". It is a fact that Hunter Biden sometimes refers to his father as "The Big Guy." It is a fact that Tony B. claims that Joe Biden was "The Big Guy" mentioned in the e-mails and that Joe Biden was receiving $ from the Chinese officials.

Now for an opinion: You are way out of line to threaten to ban someone on the smack talk forum for posting things that you disagree with. Censoring someone just because you don't like what they post is pathetic. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

18 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Here are some facts for you: It is fact that there are e-mails that show that Chinese officials that were paying Hunter Biden claim to have been introduced to Joe Biden. It is fact that Joe Biden said he never discussed Hunter's business dealings with him. It is fact that Tony B. claims to be an eyewitness to meetings between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden discussing business dealing with Chinese officials. It is a fact that there is an e-mail that lists "The Big Guy" as receiving "10". It is a fact that Hunter Biden sometimes refers to his father as "The Big Guy." It is a fact that Tony B. claims that Joe Biden was "The Big Guy" mentioned in the e-mails and that Joe Biden was receiving $ from the Chinese officials.

Now for an opinion: You are way out of line to threaten to ban someone on the smack talk forum for posting things that you disagree with. Censoring someone just because you don't like what they post is pathetic. 

Check your “facts.” You either misunderstand the facts or the meaning of the word. If you had any genuine interest in the truth, you wouldn’t be spreading lies. It’s clear you rarely  take the time to research beyond your partisan talking points. This is pathetic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

42 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Now for an opinion: You are way out of line to threaten to ban someone on the smack talk forum for posting things that you disagree with. Censoring someone just because you don't like what they post is pathetic. 

Here's a fact for you:  If he ends up getting banned, it won't be because I don't like what he has to say or disagree with him.  It's because he repeatedly spreads falsehoods, purposely blurring the lines between fact and opinion - even when it has been patiently explained in excruciating detail to him the difference between the two.  At this point when one continues to persist in the same patterns of calling conjecture "fact," it's no longer a misunderstanding or a mistake, it's willful lying.  To be clear, the issue isn't that he says things or expresses opinions that I don't agree with, it's that he refuses to separate fact from opinion, fact from assumption and conjecture.

Opinions are welcomed.  Stubbornly refusing to delineate what is opinion from what is fact is not.  It's tiring and a waste of space.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Here's a fact for you:  If he ends up getting banned, it won't be because I don't like what he has to say or disagree with him.  It's because he repeatedly spreads falsehoods, purposely blurring the lines between fact and opinion - even when it has been patiently explained in excruciating detail to him the difference between the two.  At this point when one continues to persist in the same patterns of calling conjecture "fact," it's no longer a misunderstanding or a mistake, it's willful lying.  To be clear, the issue isn't that he says things or expresses opinions that I don't agree with, it's that he refuses to separate fact from opinion, fact from assumption and conjecture.

Opinions are welcomed.  Stubbornly refusing to delineate what is opinion from what is fact is not.  It's tiring and a waste of space.

One other thing - if I'm so in the habit of banning people I disagree with how are you still here?  We disagree plenty.  What about the numerous big time arguments between me and homer, AUDub, et al on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, or transgenderism?  How'd they manage to defy me and come out unscathed if I'm so "pathetic" as to kick people out for daring to hold contrary opinions?  How come Salty, NolaAUTiger, DKW, alexava, and others aren't banished into outer darkness after the numerous and sometimes heated disagreements on social or political issues with me?

The truth of the matter is, there have been a tiny handful of people here that have been threatened and an even smaller handful that have actually been removed after getting umpteen chances to get their s*** together.  No one has been blindsided.  No one hasn't been given clear warning as to what they are doing that is the problem and given a chance to fix it while continuing to maintain the right to their political/social views.  It an exceedingly rare occurrence that it comes to such an end and it is never because they said something I disagree with.

If you're looking for something "pathetic" to rail against, start with the lazy argument that I ban people for holding different opinions.

[AUDub 11,158]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:27 PM, jj3jordan said:

Try this:  gnews.org.

The insights of "Gundam0078" are absolutely riveting. 

[AUDub 11,158]

On 10/28/2020 at 9:48 PM, SocialCircle said:

Hunter Biden dropped the laptop off in Delaware and neglected to pay for the repair or even come back to claim his laptop.  When the owner saw what was on it, he was so disturbed that he contacted the FBI. No response. Eventually, it landed in Rudy Giuliani's possession and he turned it over to the Delaware State Police AFTER making 4 copies of the hard drive. Turns out, there's quite a lot of child pornography on there...much of it involving children on Hunter's many trips to China. The Chinese Communist Party uses this as a blackmail tactic... They supply the young girls, they film you, unknowingly, and then they can keep you "in line", while paying you the big $$$ to do their bidding, like lucrative deals with your VP father.
Millions of dollars were paid to Hunter Biden for favors with the US Govt while Joe Biden was VP under Obama.
For 8 years Hunter made the contacts and split the money with his father, referred to as the "Big Guy" in all emails detailing how their ill gotten gains would be split up amongst all the criminals involved.
Joe Biden sold out his country and used his son to do it. ...
But, IT GETS WORSE. Today, on the laptop, emails were released between Beau Biden's widow, Haillie, and Joe Biden in 2017 and more in 2018 when she and Hunter were still living together. They were casually talking about the continual "sexually inappropriate behavior" she had witnessed from Hunter toward her 14 year old daughter, Natalie, HIS NIECE!..
She told Joe that she felt she had put her children in a dangerous situation by getting involved with Hunter Biden. Joe knew his son was screwing around with his niece and he advised his daughter-in-law to go to therapy.....No one went to the police and the abuse escalated. THAT is the main reason she broke off her relationship with Hunter. Among the pictures of Hunter having sex with young Asian children, there were hundreds of provocative pictures of a 14 year old girl, mainly topless, and hundreds more of Hunter Biden, in sexual poses with her, HIS NIECE. She was 14 yrs old and HE WAS 48!! We have another Joe Pa situation here among other things.  
 

I tried to warn everyone that Qanon was in this forum's near future. Here we got a guy parroting 4chan. 

On 10/28/2020 at 11:41 PM, DKW 86 said:

The Biden Family: the Democrat Party version of the Palins. 

And David shrugs. MAGA.

[AUDub 11,158]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

One other thing - if I'm so in the habit of banning people I disagree with how are you still here?  We disagree plenty.  What about the numerous big time arguments between me and homer, AUDub, et al on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, or transgenderism?  How'd they manage to defy me and come out unscathed if I'm so "pathetic" as to kick people out for daring to hold contrary opinions?  How come Salty, NolaAUTiger, DKW, alexava, and others aren't banished into outer darkness after the numerous and sometimes heated disagreements on social or political issues with me?

The truth of the matter is, there have been a tiny handful of people here that have been threatened and an even smaller handful that have actually been removed after getting umpteen chances to get their s*** together.  No one has been blindsided.  No one hasn't been given clear warning as to what they are doing that is the problem and given a chance to fix it while continuing to maintain the right to their political/social views.  It an exceedingly rare occurrence that it comes to such an end and it is never because they said something I disagree with.

If you're looking for something "pathetic" to rail against, start with the lazy argument that I ban people for holding different opinions.

Titan has been exceedingly fair to me even in the midst of some seriously terse disagreements, arguments with a lot of animosity. The one temporary ban I have earned was well deserved and handed down fairly.

This attempt to frame him as one that would abuse their status as an admin is reprehensible. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I tried to warn everyone that Qanon was in this forum's near future. Here we got a guy parroting 4chan. 

Yep.  A search on the quote "But, IT GETS WORSE. Today, on the laptop, emails were released between Beau Biden's widow, Haillie, and Joe Biden in 2017 and more in 2018 when she and Hunter were still living together" finds it was lifted from some common source as it's all over the place on the internet:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q="But%2C+IT+GETS+WORSE.+Today%2C+on+the+laptop%2C+emails+were+released+between+Beau+Biden's+widow%2C+Haillie%2C+and+Joe+Biden+in+2017+and+more+in+2018+when+she+and+Hunter+were+still+living+together."&t=osx&ia=web

 

[AUDub 11,158]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Yep.  A search on the quote "But, IT GETS WORSE. Today, on the laptop, emails were released between Beau Biden's widow, Haillie, and Joe Biden in 2017 and more in 2018 when she and Hunter were still living together" finds it was lifted from some common source as it's all over the place on the internet:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q="But%2C+IT+GETS+WORSE.+Today%2C+on+the+laptop%2C+emails+were+released+between+Beau+Biden's+widow%2C+Haillie%2C+and+Joe+Biden+in+2017+and+more+in+2018+when+she+and+Hunter+were+still+living+together."&t=osx&ia=web

 

It was the chans lol. The lifted quote, "IT GETS WORSE," nearly all Social's post, lifted from one of their supposed "investigative" threads. 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,368]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It was the chans lol. The lifted quote, "IT GETS WORSE," nearly all Social's post, lifted from one of their supposed "investigative" threads. 

Basically As the Plains Burn, but more insidious and incel. 

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, ShocksMyBrain said:

Basically As the Plains Burn, but more insidious and incel. 

Needs a flow chart. That kind of effort set ATPB apart. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On a side note, why are these QAnon/4chan weirdos so obsessed with deviant sexual stuff?  Pedophilia, incest - they see it under every rock and in every shadow.

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Check your “facts.” You either misunderstand the facts or the meaning of the word. If you had any genuine interest in the truth, you wouldn’t be spreading lies. It’s clear you rarely  take the time to research beyond your partisan talking points. This is pathetic.

I would appreciate it if you would show me which "fact" I listed is not actually a fact.

[Grumps 3,704]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

One other thing - if I'm so in the habit of banning people I disagree with how are you still here?  We disagree plenty.  What about the numerous big time arguments between me and homer, AUDub, et al on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, or transgenderism?  How'd they manage to defy me and come out unscathed if I'm so "pathetic" as to kick people out for daring to hold contrary opinions?  How come Salty, NolaAUTiger, DKW, alexava, and others aren't banished into outer darkness after the numerous and sometimes heated disagreements on social or political issues with me?

The truth of the matter is, there have been a tiny handful of people here that have been threatened and an even smaller handful that have actually been removed after getting umpteen chances to get their s*** together.  No one has been blindsided.  No one hasn't been given clear warning as to what they are doing that is the problem and given a chance to fix it while continuing to maintain the right to their political/social views.  It an exceedingly rare occurrence that it comes to such an end and it is never because they said something I disagree with.

If you're looking for something "pathetic" to rail against, start with the lazy argument that I ban people for holding different opinions.

I specifically said that to "threaten" to ban people is what I find offensive. I have no idea how many people you have banned and I did not accuse you of banning anyone. This is the smack talk forum. He thinks Joe Biden is corrupt. He might be right and he might be wrong. If you quit responding to him he may or may not quit saying the things you find offensive.

I admit to being overly sensitive about censorship and the threat of censorship. I will shut up now.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

I specifically said that to "threaten" to ban people is what I find offensive.

I threaten/warn to give them a heads up to change what they're doing so they don't get banned.

 

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

This is the smack talk forum. He thinks Joe Biden is corrupt. He might be right and he might be wrong. If you quit responding to him he may or may not quit saying the things you find offensive.

It doesn't matter if it's the smack forum.  You don't get to call opinion "fact."  He's welcome to express his opinions.  He's not welcome to lie about it and say it's "fact" or proven.

 

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

I admit to being overly sensitive about censorship and the threat of censorship. I will shut up now.

It's ok, but just realize I don't do this for the hell of it.  I just tire of people who can't meet a bare minimum of reasonable argumentation.  "Smack forum" shouldn't mean "say whatever fact-free bull**** you feel like" forum.

[Grumps 3,704]

38 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Titan has been exceedingly fair to me even in the midst of some seriously terse disagreements, arguments with a lot of animosity. The one temporary ban I have earned was well deserved and handed down fairly.

This attempt to frame him as one that would abuse their status as an admin is reprehensible. 

Do you think that socialcircle should be banned or be threatened to be banned in the smack talk forum because he posts things that have not been proven to be true?

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, Grumps said:

Do you think that socialcircle should be banned or be threatened to be banned in the smack talk forum because he posts things that have not been proven to be true?

I think when someone is clearly arguing in bad faith and multiple warnings to knock it off are ignored, its becomes necessary for the mods to, you know, moderate. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I threaten/warn to give them a heads up to change what they're doing so they don't get banned.

 

It doesn't matter if it's the smack forum.  You don't get to call opinion "fact."  He's welcome to express his opinions.  He's not welcome to lie about it and say it's "fact" or proven.

 

It's ok, but just realize I don't do this for the hell of it.  I just tire of people who can't meet a bare minimum of reasonable argumentation.  "Smack forum" shouldn't mean "say whatever fact-free bull**** you feel like" forum.

I don't remember anyone being threatened to be banned because they posted their opinions of Trump's Russian collusion as fact. But it doesn't matter. This is your forum and you can do what you want to with it.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, AUDub said:

I think when someone is clearly arguing in bad faith and multiple warnings to knock it off are ignored, its becomes necessary for the mods to, you know, moderate. 

Thanks for your reply.

So have the "assertions" by socialcircle been proven to be false? More importantly, are the warnings justified? I prefer that the people reading the posts determine for themselves what they believe to me true or untrue. But I realize that I am becoming more and more in the minority in that regard.

[AUDub 11,158]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On a side note, why are these QAnon/4chan weirdos so obsessed with deviant sexual stuff?  Pedophilia, incest - they see it under every rock and in every shadow.

Not so rare. A lot of reactionary phenomena are based on child abuse. E.g. the Satanic Panic of the 80s. 

[AUDub 11,158]

10 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't remember anyone being threatened to be banned because they posted their opinions of Trump's Russian collusion as fact. But it doesn't matter. This is your forum and you can do what you want to with it.

You're equivocating. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

23 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for your reply.

So have the "assertions" by socialcircle been proven to be false? More importantly, are the warnings justified? I prefer that the people reading the posts determine for themselves what they believe to me true or untrue. But I realize that I am becoming more and more in the minority in that regard.

That’s not the way it works. You don’t get to push unproven assertions as “fact” then shift the burden of proof over to those who object. If you make a claim, it’s on YOU to prove it, not on others to prove a negative. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

21 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So have the "assertions" by socialcircle been proven to be false? More importantly, are the warnings justified? I prefer that the people reading the posts determine for themselves what they believe to me true or untrue. But I realize that I am becoming more and more in the minority in that regard.

With all due respect, Grumps, you seem to be missing the point. Social's assertions are just that - assertions. Yet he claims they are fact, with no evidence to support it. That is arguing in bad faith. When it's done repeatedly, it gets very tiresome. Spirited debate can be interesting, informative, even fun, but Social is just sucking the life out of the room by continuing to claim "case closed" based on his opinions or what he wants to be true.

[McLoofus 35,182]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That’s not the way it works. You don’t get to push unproven assertions as “fact” then shift the burden of proof over to those who object. If you make a claim, it’s on YOU to prove it, not on others to prove a negative. 

To wit, the Russia investigation didn't exonerate Trump. It merely failed to prove him guilty. And so he is still president.

It's not "guilty until proven innocent". Very basic and foundational to our entire justice system. 

I see the usual suspects are up to their usual games.

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

I tried to warn everyone that Qanon was in this forum's near future. Here we got a guy parroting 4chan. 

So of course you have proof of that correct? You can actually prove that was Q-Anon, right? Of sourse not, you are just blowing smoke up our asses as per your norm.

And David shrugs. MAGA.

And there your clueless side has shown thru yet again.