Keith Olbermann nails Trump on his Texas Trip

[Pavlov]

Indeed I could. But I won't.

Nah, there's no way in you could.

[Spurtacular]

You've also admitted that "reasoning" wouldn't have a prayer at working in a court room

No.

[Will Hunting]

Indeed I could. But I won't.

But you've already tried. You said him being a former Clinton appointee makes him corrupt.

[Will Hunting]

No.

Are you saying "guilt by Clinton" would be a sufficient argument

[Spurtacular]

But you've already tried. You said him being a former Clinton appointee makes him corrupt.

Well, then, there you go. No need to dig deeper than that.

[Spurtacular]

Are you saying "guilt by Clinton" would be a sufficient argument

I'm saying you argue like a gimp cos I have no idea what the you're even talking about; and I certainly didn't say what you claimed I said in the post prior; hence the simple no.

[Will Hunting]

Well, then, there you go. No need to dig deeper than that.

Fair enough.

Youve presented a completely illogical and inadequate argument lacking any actual evidence that Mueller is corrupt.

Doesnt sound like Mueller has much to be worried about.

[Will Hunting]

I'm saying you argue like a gimp cos I have no idea what the you're even talking about; and I certainly didn't say what you claimed I said in the post prior; hence the simple no.

You said this isn't a court room . Can you clarify what you were implying by that?

[Spurtacular]

Logic is not limited to academics, dim.

Please show some evidence of his corruption. I won't hold my breath.

Okay, but it actually is a science and not just a colloquial term when you start bringing up terms like ad hominem. And my point is that this board hardly strictly adheres to those rules. And thus you're trying to take refuge like a gimp in a place you ought not take it. Furthermore, you don't even abide the rules of logic to be playing that card.

[Spurtacular]

Fair enough.

Youve presented a completely illogical and inadequate argument lacking any actual evidence that Mueller is corrupt.

Doesnt sound like Mueller has much to be worried about.

Actually, I presented little to nothing like I said I would. You guys just went into tantrum mode and didn't accept that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hardly. In fact, I encourage you to keep that avi til the end of time.

Yeah you brought it up with diatribe unprovoked because you don't care. You are not persuasive.

[Blake]

Actually, I presented little to nothing like I said I would. You guys just went into tantrum mode and didn't accept that.

If you're not gonna present facts, then there's no reason for anyone to discuss anything with you.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah you brought it up with diatribe unprovoked because you don't care. You are not persuasive.

Diatribe? W/O looking, I'd bet I typed under 75 words. Again, keep the avi. I actually find it funny that someone like you is pinning his hopes and dreams on that white grandpa looking dude.

[Spurtacular]

If you're not gonna present facts, then there's no reason for anyone to discuss anything with you.

Okay, chump.

[Blake]

Okay, chump.

It is what it is. It's why you're getting on so badly here.

[Spurtacular]

It is what it is. It's why you're getting on so badly here.

Me: I'm not interested in arguing.
Everyone else: Wah!
Chump alt: We're ting on you.

[Spurtacular]

ChumpDumper

Dude, you're only demonstrating why I took a pass on the argument in the first place.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay, but it actually is a science and not just a colloquial term when you start bringing up terms like ad hominem. And my point is that this board hardly strictly adheres to those rules. And thus you're trying to take refuge like a gimp in a place you ought not take it. Furthermore, you don't even abide the rules of logic to be playing that card.

Science is not limited to academics either. Whether or not the board adheres to logic is besides the point. Science and logic remain the best method we have of ascertaining the truth. If you want to go with the LCD that is on you. As an aside, you reducing how the people who post here down to a single en y is a mindnumbing oversimplification. Let's just leave it that you do not adhere to those standards. That much is readily obvious.

As for me, if I say something illogical, I won't be a about it like you have been. I'll adapt to it and move on. Of course you cannot point to anything illogical of mine so I'll put this most recent assertion with the rest of your horse .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Diatribe? W/O looking, I'd bet I typed under 75 words. Again, keep the avi. I actually find it funny that someone like you is pinning his hopes and dreams on that white grandpa looking dude.

you don't know what diatribe means.

[Pavlov]

ChumpDumper

Dude, you're only demonstrating why I took a pass on the argument in the first place.

you think that's me.

And you said you didn't want to spend time talking about it -- yet here you are.

[Spurtacular]

Science is not limited to academics either. Whether or not the board adheres to logic is besides the point. Science and logic remain the best method we have of ascertaining the truth. If you want to go with the LCD that is on you. As an aside, you reducing how the people who post here down to a single en y is a mindnumbing oversimplification. Let's just leave it that you do not adhere to those standards. That much is readily obvious.

As for me, if I say something illogical, I won't be a about it like you have been. I'll adapt to it and move on. Of course you cannot point to anything illogical of mine so I'll put this most recent assertion with the rest of your horse .

Goodness gracious, dude. You don't even follow your own bull to be giving me this lecture right now. You used an appeal to authority fallacy right after calling out your ad hominem bull .

Logic requires strict rigors. You are hardly qualified to be enacting it as an absolute basis for discussion.

[Spurtacular]

you think that's me.

And you said you didn't want to spend time talking about it -- yet here you are.

No, I said I didn't want to spend time talking about it on your terms.

[Pavlov]

No, I said I didn't want to spend time talking about it on your terms.

Just on your own presurrender terms. You're fine with that.

[Blake]

Me: I'm not interested in arguing.
Everyone else: Wah!
Chump alt: We're ting on you.

You: I'm not interested in backing up my claim
Everyone else: you're full of . Lol.

[Spurtacular]

Just on your own presurrender terms. You're fine with that.

I suppose you think being combative proves something.