Reply With Quote
And you used fallacious reasoning to "convince" yourself. So, who the cares.
And yet, you failed to give one (1) example of nepotism you claimed occurred during the Obama era.
So I'm still not convinced you know what it is.
You just curl up into a little ball when questioned. It's funny.
And you used fallacious reasoning to "convince" yourself. So, who the cares.
So you still have no examples of nepotism in the Obama era?And you used fallacious reasoning to "convince" yourself. So, who the cares.
I actually did leave an example, numb nuts.
, you're dumb.
You just posted a name without any actual example of nepotism.
An example and an explanation are two different things.
So, this is where chump got his mindless narrative. I said nothing that contradicted the definition of nepotism.
# ingGimpDefinition of nepotism
:favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship ·accused the company of fostering nepotism in promotions
# ingmoron.
No one expects you to be able to explain anything. You never have before.
I put the example out there. Are you denying its fundamental truth? If you're willing to admit that, then I'm willing to show that you are out a ing tool outright.
Taking quotes out of context only speaks to your inadequacy, gimp.
# ingmoron.
I know you won't even try to explain your "fundamental truth."
I called it right. I'm not here to cater to your lazy trolling.
You're here to demand everyone agree with you and never question you.
I don't mind you questioning me. Asking (nay, demanding) me to prove anything and everything cos you can is asinine. If this issue is important to you, you can find out in a matter of minutes if not seconds. But you would rather pretend this is about something else for days on end. #ParForTheCourse
Obviously it bothers the living out of you since you keep coming back to whine about it and still never explain anything when questioned. All you had to do was write one or two sentences to elaborate.
Just a little.
Why can't you do that?
You don't give a about the answer or you would have found out already. It's not my problem that you don't understand good faith efforts and how they're reciprocated / rewarded.
I asked you to explain your example in good faith because you post a lot of things in bad faith. Why do you refuse to discuss issues you bring up on a discussion board?
If I am a liar and I state that I am a liar, I am not a liar, which makes me a liar.
If I am honest and I say I am am honest, you have to believe I am honest else I'm still a liar.
So what's your point?
Good faith would be caring about the issue at hand rather than looking for a quarrel.
I'm happy to tell you THE FACT that nepotism occurred in the Obama Era and list the high-profile example of Harry Reid. This can be found out in seconds. It's not my job to "prove" it for you. Go ahead and tell me you can't readily find it and we can decipher that you're inept, and I can maybe cater to your ineptness going forward.
Lol unnecessary hash tags
It doesn't seem you really want to discuss nepotism at all.
Good faith would be caring about the issue at hand rather than looking for a quarrel.
I'm happy to tell you THE FACT that nepotism occurred in the Obama Era and list the high-profile example of Harry Reid. This can be found out in seconds. It's not my job to "prove" it for you. Go ahead and tell me you can't readily find it and we can decipher that you're inept, and I can maybe cater to your ineptness going forward.
Lol unnecessary scorecarding.
"Go ahead and tell me you can't readily find it and we can decipher that you're inept, and I can maybe cater to your ineptness going forward."
You gonna tell me or what?
As this is apparently an item of great interest, I think it's fair to ask if you've bothered to do any research.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
