John Durham - Making a killing and finding nothing since 2018.

[homersapien 11,431]

10 hours ago, bigbird said:

Democratic leadership during the last presidential term...

Gosh, I didn't realize that Democrats were the only politicians that ever lie.

Thanks so much for setting me straight.  

(Now don't forget, Trump won.)

Edited March 21, 2022 by homersapien

[AU9377 5,026]

10 hours ago, bigbird said:

Democratic leadership during the last presidential term...

This

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-s-scorecard-who-s-been-convicted-sentenced-n980731

In the second line of Mueller's report:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-mueller-report-9-key-takeaways-2019-07-23/

I am at a total loss as to why this investigation is even relevant at this point in time.  It was clearly warranted based on the information in the report.

FURTHERMORE....

Republican "leadership" had their style of see, ignore and lie on display for the entire world to see during the first Trump impeachment.

[AU9377 5,026]

On 3/18/2022 at 4:13 AM, jj3jordan said:

Why are you yammering on about Trump? He is not even in this discussion. I quoted directly from ICHY’s posted article and you say I am lying. You don’t or won’t recognize the truth. Nobody wants you to banned. That would be what democrats do to the opposition.  You’re a good example of why we need free speech in this country. I am entertained by what you come up with every day. I can take the horse hockey accusations you make. War doesn’t make military forces less proficient and unable to accomplish missions. That is done by politicians and in this case the democrat president from 76-80. The last thing you argue for is the truth. You argue to bash Trump or any Trump supporter, which is your right. Please, keep it real and not just made up.

Trump is part of the discussion. Period.

[bigbird 60,580]

39 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Gosh, I didn't realize that Democrats were the only politicians that ever lie.

Thanks so much for setting me straight.  

(Now don't forget, Trump won.)

I never said or implied that only Democrats lie. 

As far as setting you straight, that wasn't my intention. As I don't believe you can be drawn towards the center. My intent was to again show you the rampant hypocrisy routinely and fluently expressed by those in the extremes on the board. I'm sorry that struck such a nerve.

[homersapien 11,431]

6 hours ago, bigbird said:

I never said or implied that only Democrats lie. 

As far as setting you straight, that wasn't my intention. As I don't believe you can be drawn towards the center. My intent was to again show you the rampant hypocrisy routinely and fluently expressed by those in the extremes on the board. I'm sorry that struck such a nerve.

Well, what was your intention then?

It seems to me your intention was to demonstrate I hold different standards of lying by Democrats vs. Republicans.  That's not true.  But then, you never bothered to discern my view on any specific example of lying by Democrats, you just assumed I would defend them.  

Secondly - as far as me being "drawn to the center" - I am not sure how one defines the center.  How do you define it?  Pick an issue - or issues -  and let's try to agree on what the "center" of that issue would be.  I may be a lot closer to the "center" that you assume. Maybe you are the one who needs to be "drawn" to the center.

Finally, what do you mean by "striking a nerve"?  What have I said that would lead you to think that? 

If you are referring to my comment "Trump won", I was simply pointing out the ironically partisan response you made regarding (lying) "Democrats in the last election",  as if they were the only ones lying, which is what such a response does imply.

It's pretty obvious that any given Democrat or Republican are capable of lying. 

"Trump won" was my way of making that point for the last election (albeit in a rather sarcastic way).  Same goes for "Gosh, I didn't realize that Democrats were the only politicians that ever lie.   (Thus the eyeroll.)  (In fact, that entire post was sarcastic.  I suppose I erred in thinking it was obvious.)

Bottom line, I don't think you are "capable" of an honest debate, which is why you typically avoid it by interjecting humor or - in this case - mindless partisanship by implying I am one of those "fluent" and "hypocritical extremists" .   

I think you were referring to me, correct?  (Or are we going to suddenly switch to the third person in order to crawfish from what you meant?)

So prove me wrong.  Let's parse this exchange further.

Were you trying to imply I was being hypocritical about lying?  Can you show me any evidence for that or are you just presuming?

Do you think I am an extremist?  Got any evidence for that?

Finally, why did you "laugh" at 9377's post?  What about it did you find funny?

Edited March 21, 2022 by homersapien

[bigbird 60,580]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, what was your intention then?

Read my 4th sentence. 

 

[bigbird 60,580]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you think I am an extremist? Got any evidence for that?

There is a thread where I called Tex a "proud fringe lefty". I included you and Fifty in that same mold. You then said that you were proud to be in the same category as the two others. That seems like you are admitting to being part of the proud fringe left. That's just my interpretation though.

 

 A very fun read...

[homersapien 11,431]

16 hours ago, bigbird said:

Read my 4th sentence. 

 

Your fourth sentence was a passive-aggressive, ad hominem attack on me. 

Why do you think I need to have the hypocrisy of politicians be demonstrated to me.  I stated that all politicians lie from time to time. The only distinction in my mind is the implication that a given lie has on the future of our country. 

You apparently don't want to debate substance because you can't hold your own in such a debate. So you resort to this sort of attack by implication, without providing a single example.

(But hey, you got great responses from your mindless posse, so you can feel good about that.)

As a monitor, it's very unbecoming for you to lower the standards for what should be a forum for serious discussion of issues.  Don't be such a wuss.

You want to take me on - which you clearly do - present something substantive to debate.  Surely you can find something since you consider me to be a "radical" or "fringe" leftist.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

14 hours ago, bigbird said:

There is a thread where I called Tex a "proud fringe lefty". I included you and Fifty in that same mold. You then said that you were proud to be in the same category as the two others. That seems like you are admitting to being part of the proud fringe left. That's just my interpretation though.

 

 A very fun read...

Well then, pick out a substantive point I made and we'll debate it.

Or is that not "fun" for you?

(Oh btw, I am proud to be included in the same category as Tex and Fifty.  Both of those posters address substantive issues in a reasoned, thoughtful way.)

The term "fringe left" was yours and I don't agree with it.  Again, if you want to argue that, provide an example instead of just flinging poo.

Edited March 22, 2022 by homersapien

[bigbird 60,580]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your fourth sentence was a passive-aggressive, ad hominem attack on me. 

You literally said you didn't know my intent...

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, what was your intention then?

Clearly my 4th sentence literally started, "my intent..." 

On 3/21/2022 at 9:19 AM, bigbird said:

My intent was to again show you the rampant hypocrisy routinely and fluently expressed by those in the extremes on the board.

Since you are having trouble, I bolded that part for you.

 

So, how exactly is that an ad hominem?  Seems more of a comprehension or reading ability thing. I'm not at all sure how you can be confused by that. That's factual statements from our own words.

 

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why do you think I need to have the hypocrisy of politicians be demonstrated to me. 

It's not the hypocrisy of politicians being pointed out or discussed.  It was yours.  You are one of the biggest hypocrites on this board and it's routinely on display. That's why you should have it pointed out to you.

 

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You apparently don't want to debate that sort of substance because you can't hold your own in such a debate

I've held my own plenty with you. The issue is that there is absolutely no point in discussing things with you. As nicely as possible, you're at best disingenuous with those presenting an alternative view. At worst, you believe all you say. There is no reasonable debate with you or any of the other fringe posters on here.  I choose not to engage in your type of duplicitous debate.  

 

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As a monitor, it's very unbecoming for you to lower the standards for what should be a forum for serious discussion of issues.

Really? Trying to guilt me? That's hilarious...

No, no really you playing the hall monitor card calling for serious debate is too funny coming from you. 

 

Let's see if I have this right. Everyone should be able to weigh in.

First Homer will make an outlandish hypocritical statement about the republicans. Then I will respond. Homer will take my response, call me a name, twist words, rearrange statements, and omit pertinent information. Then try and be cute and clever.  I will show the fallacy in his  statement, I will show you where you tried to manipulate the information, and will add additional information to support my case. Homer will ignore everything said and will try and pass off his now manipulated form as real, factually informed information.  It's been the exact same way for years.  

 

There is no debate with you. You try and bully and run over people and the claim superiority and correctness when grown men chose not to engage your juvenile behaviors.  That's not winning a debate, that's not proving a point, that's not convincing others of anything. that's annoying to the point where people know not to engage you.

 

[bigbird 60,580]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

The term "fringe left" was yours and I don't agree with it.  Again, if you want to argue that, provide an example instead of just flinging poo.

I don't care if you believe it or agree with it. You have proven to everyone here where you stand.  It doesn't matter what you think. Perception is reality and the reality is that you squarely fit in the category you yourself have claimed to enjoy being in.

[homersapien 11,431]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I don't care if you believe it or agree with it. You have proven to everyone here where you stand.  It doesn't matter what you think. Perception is reality and the reality is that you squarely fit in the category you yourself have claimed to enjoy being in.

Well, then surely you can come up with a SINGLE example of a "fringe" position I have taken.

And I totally disagree that perception is (literally) reality as you profess.  That phrase is obviously referring to human foibles.   

Reality naturally exists outside of human perceptions - or human politics -  which is the point of the phrase in the first place. 

And again, the "category" I am proud to be a part of is association with Tiger and Fifty.  I certainly don't consider myself fringe.  In fact, I would say I am more conservative than many of the MAGAs who post here.

I am not surprised you would rely on a meme and a sophomoric 'gotcha' though.  It suits you and your substanceless style.

Edited March 22, 2022 by homersapien

[bigbird 60,580]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, then surely you can come up with a SINGLE example of a "fringe" position I have taken.

And I totally disagree that perception is (literally) reality as you profess.  That phrase is obviously referring to human foibles.   

Reality naturally exists outside of human perceptions - or human politics -  which is the point of the phrase in the first place. 

And again, the "category" I am proud to be a part of is association with Tiger and Fifty.  I certainly don't consider myself fringe.  In fact, I would say I am more conservative than many of the MAGAs who post here.

I am not surprised you would rely on a meme and a sophomoric 'gotcha' though.  It suits you.

A single one, yes. Multiple examples? Also yes. Will it matter or will you continue your schtick that I described earlier? After years of engaging you, I know it won't. Therefore, it's not and I won't.

[homersapien 11,431]

39 minutes ago, bigbird said:

You literally said you didn't know my intent...

Clearly my 4th sentence literally started, "my intent..." 

Since you are having trouble, I bolded that part for you.

 

So, how exactly is that an ad hominem?  Seems more of a comprehension or reading ability thing. I'm not at all sure how you can be confused by that. That's factual statements from our own words.

 

It's not the hypocrisy of politicians being pointed out or discussed.  It was yours.  You are one of the biggest hypocrites on this board and it's routinely on display. That's why you should have it pointed out to you.

 

I've held my own plenty with you. The issue is that there is absolutely no point in discussing things with you. As nicely as possible, you're at best disingenuous with those presenting an alternative view. At worst, you believe all you say. There is no reasonable debate with you or any of the other fringe posters on here.  I choose not to engage in your type of duplicitous debate.  

 

Really? Trying to guilt me? That's hilarious...

No, no really you playing the hall monitor card calling for serious debate is too funny coming from you. 

 

Let's see if I have this right. Everyone should be able to weigh in.

First Homer will make an outlandish hypocritical statement about the republicans. Then I will respond. Homer will take my response, call me a name, twist words, rearrange statements, and omit pertinent information. Then try and be cute and clever.  I will show the fallacy in his  statement, I will show you where you tried to manipulate the information, and will add additional information to support my case. Homer will ignore everything said and will try and pass off his now manipulated form as real, factually informed information.  It's been the exact same way for years.  

 

There is no debate with you. You try and bully and run over people and the claim superiority and correctness when grown men chose not to engage your juvenile behaviors.  That's not winning a debate, that's not proving a point, that's not convincing others of anything. that's annoying to the point where people know not to engage you.

 

Again, no examples. 

And how is making a comment about a conservative necessarily "hypocritical"?  Does that mean that anyone who makes a statement about Biden is automatically hypocritical?

Are we really going to hide behind "whataboutism" for every supposed "debate" as the crux of the matter?

That's just a cowards way out.  You don't want to argue substance, you are more interesting in arguing personality because that's all you got.

Edited March 22, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

A single one, yes. Multiple examples? Also yes. Will it matter or will you continue your schtick that I described earlier? After years of engaging you, I know it won't. Therefore, it's not and I won't.

Of course you won't.

Your quite content to stick to ad hominem attack.  Your not skilled enough or principled enough to argue substance.

At least you know your capabilities.

[bigbird 60,580]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course you won't.

Your quite content to stick to ad hominem attack.  Your not skilled enough or principled enough to argue substance.

At least you know your capabilities.

Don't touch the stove 

The element is hot 

The element is red 

You'll burn yourself if you touch it.

 

Homer: "I knew you were too scared to touch it"

[homersapien 11,431]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Don't touch the stove 

The element is hot 

The element is red 

You'll burn yourself if you touch it.

 

Homer: "I knew you were too scared to touch it"

Like I said, you know your capabilities.

[bigbird 60,580]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said, you know your capabilities.

Is this the substantive type post you're referring to or is this just another example of you trying to belittle and demean?  

 

There are far many of those types of post than you actually engaging in a real conversation. Lie, twist, rearrange, demean, belittle, name call, rinse and  repeat.  We ALL know your capabilities too, Homer.

[homersapien 11,431]

40 minutes ago, bigbird said:

First Homer will make an outlandish hypocritical statement about the republicans. Then I will respond. Homer will take my response, call me a name, twist words, rearrange statements, and omit pertinent information. Then try and be cute and clever.  I will show the fallacy in his  statement, I will show you where you tried to manipulate the information, and will add additional information to support my case. Homer will ignore everything said and will try and pass off his now manipulated form as real, factually informed information.  It's been the exact same way for years. 

Speaking of hypocrisy, that's the most extreme case of projection I've ever seen, coming from the master of drive-by, blow-off gifs meant to ridicule the post and poster instead of engaging him/her.

I cannot even recall a time when you've engaged me on substance.  It's possible, but I don't remember it. 

You are the king of snark. Probably because it's the only tool in your box.

[homersapien 11,431]

15 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Is this the substantive type post you're referring to or is this just another example of you trying to belittle and demean?  

 

There are far many of those types of post than you actually engaging in a real conversation. Lie, twist, rearrange, demean, belittle, name call, rinse and  repeat.  We ALL know your capabilities too, Homer.

No, you call me out just to insult me and I'll respond in kind. (It's a weakness of mine and I am not proud of it.)  But if you want to debate something substantive in a respective way, I'm up for that as well.

Regardless, you're still at it.  You call me a liar, but you cannot produce the lie.

So you keep projecting - by "lying, twisting, rearranging, demeaning, belittling, name calling" and I'll come right back at'cha.  I guess we can then argue about who started it first. 

If you weren't a respected moderator - at least on the sports forums - I'd simply put you on ignore like I have with other political posters like you.  But I'll be damned if I am going to allow a moderator to push substanceless, ad hominem crap on me in this or any other forum.

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by homersapien

[bigbird 60,580]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I cannot even recall a time when you've engaged me on substance. 

That because you rarely engage anyone substantially.

It's not from a lack of trying.  I really did for the first few years.   Then, your pattern of behavior was revealed.  Definition of insanity and all...

As far as drive by post go, some post are worth exactly what response they get.  

 

You're intelligent, you are articulate, you research well, none of those facts change the notion that your are hypocritical and disingenuous when one tries to engage you. 

 

Like I said, Lie, twist, rearrange, demean, belittle, name call, rinse and  repeat.  We ALL know your capabilities too, Homer.

Oh, BTW...don't look now but your other strengths, distraction and subject change, are being utilized to their fullest now. Good job!

[bigbird 60,580]

Just from this last page...tell me again about those ad hominem attacks you claim? But you want to engage, right? 

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are the king of snark. Probably because it's the only tool in your box.

 

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said, you know your capabilities.

 

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your quite content to stick to ad hominem attack.  Your not skilled enough or principled enough to argue substance.

At least you know your capabilities.

 

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's just a cowards way out.  You don't want to argue substance, you are more interesting in arguing personality because that's all you got.

 

52 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not surprised you would rely on a meme and a sophomoric 'gotcha' though.  It suits you and your substanceless style.

Again, you have been judged and proven lacking.

 

Caecus es ad te ipsum

[wdefromtx 3,159]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, you call me out just to insult me and I'll respond in kind. (It's a weakness of mine and I am not proud of it.)  But if you want to debate something substantive in a respective way, I'm up for that as well.

Regardless, you're still at it.  You call me a liar, but you cannot produce the lie.

So you keep projecting - by "lying, twisting, rearranging, demeaning, belittling, name calling" and I'll come right back at'cha.  I guess we can then argue about who started it first. 

If you weren't a respected moderator - at least on the sports forums - I'd simply put you on ignore like I have with other political posters like you.  But I'll be damned if I am going to allow a moderator to push substanceless, ad hominem crap on me in this or any other forum.

 

 

 

I remember you saying that you’d “just as much see” someone who isn’t vaccinated die. When I called you out on it you lied and said you never said that. Then later on you doubled down with the vitriol and hate. Which that kind of hate is typical of the fringe left. 

[homersapien 11,431]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I remember you saying that you’d “just as much see” someone who isn’t vaccinated die. When I called you out on it you lied and said you never said that. Then later on you doubled down with the vitriol and hate. Which that kind of hate is typical of the fringe left. 

 

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I remember you saying that you’d “just as much see” someone who isn’t vaccinated die. When I called you out on it you lied and said you never said that. Then later on you doubled down with the vitriol and hate. Which that kind of hate is typical of the fringe left. 

If I said that, you didn't quote me accurately.

For example, just using the statement above, I would never say that concerning people who simply weren't vaccinated.  There are legitimate reasons for someone not to be vaccinated.

So whatever I said, I was referring to those who deliberately refuse vaccination for political or conspiratorial reasons.

And as far as those persons are concerned, as I recall it, I never said I hoped they would die or even prefer they die, but I might have said something to the effect that I don't care if they die. I stand by that.

At any rate, you obviously didn't present me with the actual quote.

  Obviously, I would not deny something I actually wrote if presented with it.  Perhaps you miss characterized it.

So I think your memory is biased and erroneous.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

If I said that, you didn't quote me accurately.

For example, just using the statement above, I would never say that concerning people who simply weren't vaccinated.  There are legitimate reasons for someone not to be vaccinated.

So whatever I said, I was referring to those who deliberately refuse vaccination for political or conspiratorial reasons.

And as far as those persons are concerned, as I recall it, I never said I hoped they would die or even prefer they die, but I might have said something to the effect that I don't care if they die. I stand by that.

At any rate, you obviously didn't present me with the actual quote.

  Obviously, I would not deny something I actually wrote if presented with it.  Perhaps you miss characterized it.

So I think your memory is biased and erroneous.

Well I don’t remember the exact quote now, but I did originally present you with it and you tried to deny it. I then presented you with a definition of the exact phrase you used which is commonly excepted as preferring something to happen. 
 

You lied about it then and are lying about it still. I think others on here were shocked you would stoop that low.