repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
sorry Friend, I don't trust you.... dishonest folks are untrustworthy.
That must make things really confusing for you then. Do you trust yourself?
I'm sorry, but I do believe I've been around longer than you have. Certainly a longer time period than you. As long as the...technique...doesn't violate the forum rules, it's permissible. To my knowledge, deciphering what another person here says is indeed central to the premise of presenting a rebuttal. If you've never done it before, well I daresay that your debating style is fundamentally flawed.
The last election saw an almost 50/50 popular vote. Plus the debates over Healthcare, Gun Control, Etc.
I think that's what you were trying to say, right? It's not hard to respond to thought-out argument, if you've got the mind for it.
It's between you and Paschendale....or it was until you realized you were in over your head.
Isn't it funny that those who crow the loudest about the constitution are the ones who threaten violence instead of following the constitutionally created methods for change?
It's not changes to the Constitution that worry us, it's circumventions of the Constitution that worry us. And it's those to execute the latter that don't use the constitutionally created methods.
nah, not confusing at all....you have lied to me, and about me, more in one afternoon than I have lied to myself in 60 years....
some folks are cut out for honesty, some aren't.... the two normally don't get along well.
You could have just manned up and changed your post, you instead chose to double down on your bull****. ....but meh, your character flaws are your problem.
You call changing someone else's post "debate"? I call it "chicken****."
A bit of life advice for you, kid: be careful making assumptions about people you don't know.
It's called paraphrasing :roll:
Usually, I just think it, but it's occasionally useful to write it out, to point out a person's attempted deceit.
This is how I feel as well. If it were possible for idiots to revolt in a way that only got them arrested and permanently removed from society without hurting anybody else, I'd be all for it. Society would be able to progress a lot more easily.Oh come on, let's be honest. It is people who interpret the constitution differently than you that worry you. You all think only your interpretation is valid.
In some ways I would love to see that revolution. Purge some of the stupid from the gene pool. Too many innocents any good people would get hurt in addition however.
horse****... i'm getting a lil bit tired of you trying to validate your dishonesty.I think you might actually be ignorant of what you did wrong, so much so that you think I'm lying, so let me enlighten you. Post #158, you side-stepped Paschendale's post by replying you couldn't finish reading it, a real sad side-step at that. Then, in post 160, I posted a quote from you, and asked you if that's what you really meant to say. Obviously, your couldn't read it thing was a shoddy attempt to get out of a conversation you knew you weren't going to win.
really?... you are not sure how I made the leap?... despite you changing the words of my posts and replacing my words with yours.. despite drawing conclusions that you dreamed up in your little mind... you do not understand how i made the leap?I'm not sure how you made the leap of imagination to me being dishonest, but you then attempted to tell me I was pro gun control, while in post 163 I highlighted your failed attempt at dodging Paschendale's argument, but by then you started to cling to the "but you're a liar!" defense. Then, in a great example of circular logic, you said you wouldn't believe my position on gun control can neither be categorized as pro or anti gun because I was dishonest about my opinion on gun control.
I highly doubt more than a few are interested... but for those whom are, your dishonesty is on display here..... your words that you attributed to me have not been changed, not do I expect them to be ( were you possessing of integrity, they would have been changed long ago)It's all there, pages 16 to 17, friend. The conversation proceeded from there. Again, I'd refer you to post 163 as to your options for the actual debate in this thread. But by now, I'm sure you've conveniently lost all interest in addressing arguments against you.
You didn't paraphrase what Thrilla said. Claiming that you did really is deceitful, and anybody can go back a few pages and see this for him/herself.
horse****... i'm getting a lil bit tired of you trying to validate your dishonesty.
I was not in conversation with Pash... I merely commented in his delusional opinion the lazy people do not exist.... I won't entertain anyones writing who is either that dumb or that delusional,no sense in wasting my time on such idiocy.
anyways, there was no conversation...I stopped reading his arguments after the first few sentences..... and then your dumba ass chimes in to draw conclusions about me that you dreamed up and try to pass off as fact
you are simply dishonest.
really?... you are not sure how I made the leap?... despite you changing the words of my posts and replacing my words with yours.. despite drawing conclusions that you dreamed up in your little mind... you do not understand how i made the leap?
it seems i have given you too much credit here... i figured you would understand what dishonesty is.... and It's obvious I have erred in that estimation.
listen dude... I did not type what you presented as my post.... those were not my words... they were YOUR words.
YOU were DISHONEST in changing my post... it really is that simple.
as for your position on gun control.. I don't give a flat ****... the overriding issue is that you are dishonest and i do not trust anything you have to say... you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy, period.
seriously dude, it's not my fault you lied.... you will not spin this into being my fault.... I will not allow it.
I highly doubt more than a few are interested... but for those whom are, your dishonesty is on display here..... your words that you attributed to me have not been changed, not do I expect them to be ( were you possessing of integrity, they would have been changed long ago)
don't be "sure" of things you cannot and do not know... I have zero problem addressing any arguments against me... I do, however, have a problem with dishonest people like you... I will not respond to folks like you with anything but the disdain and incivility they deserve.
if anything comes of this, I would hope it is you learning not to change other peoples post...such dishonesty will not win you favor or benefit your credibility.
If I claimed that was what he actually said, it'd be lying. As it is, I make no effort to disguise the fact that I changed the exact wording he used. Again, the altered version presents an accurate paraphrase. For further analysis, I'd direct you to post 163. Post 184 clearly summarizes the timeline of this conversation, though I leave out you, clownboy, and the recruit; you weren't primarily relevant to Thrilla's attempt at escaping what he knew was a losing battle.
Interesting side note, by now Thrilla has undoubtedly convinced himself that his motivations in dodging Paschendale's post were different from what I've presented. Surely, some wisp of accurate recollection is present, but overall, his mind has probably overwritten his original thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to point out that possibility, I love cognitive science, and I think it's important to note its relevance in daily life.
dear lord, you can't even get the basic facts correct.He responded to you, ergo he started a debate with you. You quickly backed out, and the motivations for doing so have been repeated many times in this thread.
do you understand how ****ing arrogant you sound?.... who the **** are you to tell me what I'm thinking?It's okay, you're obviously too invested in finding your own innocence to think through this rationally; it's become a pride issue for you, and hubris won't let you even conceive you're wrong.
more lies.Yeah, I know. But the fact of the matter is, they present your true motivation for responding to Paschendale in the manner that you did. I never claimed you actually said what I addressed, and I made no effort to disguise that I changed your words. Regardless, they present your motivation for ignoring Paschendale's response to your comment.
See? Pride issue. To be fair, I made it a pride issue with post 163, and it's hard for you to not go down the path you did at that point. I'll be nice. Maybe up until this point, you actually think I'm claiming that the words addressed were yours. They are not, nor have I ever claimed they are. I have, and do claim, however, that they present your motivation for addressing Paschendale in the way that you did. I've seen it a hundred times, I've done it myself. It's bound to happen when you make comments on threads you're slightly interested in, and receive a lengthy response, as was the case here. You could've completely ignored Paschendale, but you chose to instead dismiss his argument on its face but making a superficial claim.
you are not important... i'll sleep well no matter how dishonest you want to be.If it lets you sleep comfortably, just keep thinking that.
ahh gee, and here you are claiming to know what i'm thinking again.Yes...Post #158. I feel it's become a quite common sentiment here, but I feel obligated to say that you just lied.
I'm sure you believe you can read minds.May I say, I appreciate how straightforward and easy to understand you make yourself, I can pretty much predict what you're going to say next
This is how I feel as well. If it were possible for idiots to revolt in a way that only got them arrested and permanently removed from society without hurting anybody else, I'd be all for it. Society would be able to progress a lot more easily.
If I claimed that was what he actually said, it'd be lying. As it is, I make no effort to disguise the fact that I changed the exact wording he used. Again, the altered version presents an accurate paraphrase. For further analysis, I'd direct you to post 163. Post 184 clearly summarizes the timeline of this conversation, though I leave out you, clownboy, and the recruit; you weren't primarily relevant to Thrilla's attempt at escaping what he knew was a losing battle.
Interesting side note, by now Thrilla has undoubtedly convinced himself that his motivations in dodging Paschendale's post were different from what I've presented. Surely, some wisp of accurate recollection is present, but overall, his mind has probably overwritten his original thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to point out that possibility, I love cognitive science, and I think it's important to note its relevance in daily life.
I suspect the ones who will be looting and being shot or detained by LE and military will be those who depend on government programs for their survival when the government is no longer able to meet their needs. There may be some civilian violence as those who have defend themselves against those who steal, but in the beginning at least it is more likely the armed citizens will be sitting back defending themselves rather than attacking anybody. The real danger will begin when military weapons get in to the hands of civilians.
YES! By the "well regulated militia". And I'm for that.let me guess... it will quickly be taken care of by people with guns.
amirite?
You dont seem to be hearing who exactly is talking civil war at this time.
Civil War?s A-Brewin?
The Freedom Fighter's Journal: A PATRIOT WRITES OF CIVIL WAR
CIVIL WAR: OBAMA DENIES STATES’ PETITIONS TO SECEDE FROM UNION… | Tea Party
CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS | Tea Party
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?