Thus far it seems the only thing Bill Clinton was definitely guilty of with Epstein was being willing to take money from anyone.
White House has settled in
784,359 Views |
4703 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by cbbass1
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
GBear4Life said:
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
So you're telling me I should read Coulter because she might surprise me? She might go against a lengthy and sizable body of work, both written and spoken, that places her on the far right fringe?
Nah. I know what to expect from Coulter because she is a one-trick pony and rarely has anything insightful or cogent to say.
So, my answer is "Yes, it is far easier to dismiss Coulter outright as a RWNJ, than to waste the precious few minutes it would take to read her blatherings on the absurd chance that she might break character. "
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
LOL what is it like to be a grown man proud to be mentally owned by Coulter? And proud to object without actually knowing what you're objecting to.AunBear89 said:GBear4Life said:
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
So you're telling me I should read Coulter because she might surprise me? She might go against a lengthy and sizable body of work, both written and spoken, that places her on the far right fringe?
Nah. I know what to expect from Coulter because she is a one-trick pony and rarely has anything insightful or cogent to say.
So, my answer is "Yes, it is far easier to dismiss Coulter outright as a RWNJ, than to waste the precious few minutes it would take to read her blatherings on the absurd chance that she might break character. "
Classic leftist logic.
GBear4Life said:LOL what is it like to be a grown man proud to be mentally owned by Coulter? And proud to object without actually knowing what you're objecting to.AunBear89 said:GBear4Life said:
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
So you're telling me I should read Coulter because she might surprise me? She might go against a lengthy and sizable body of work, both written and spoken, that places her on the far right fringe?
Nah. I know what to expect from Coulter because she is a one-trick pony and rarely has anything insightful or cogent to say.
So, my answer is "Yes, it is far easier to dismiss Coulter outright as a RWNJ, than to waste the precious few minutes it would take to read her blatherings on the absurd chance that she might break character. "
Classic leftist logic.
Who said anything about "mentally owned!?" What does that even mean?
Tell me something, MENSA, do keep tuning in to a show you hate thinking that some day it won't suck? Do you keep eating at the same cr@ppy place in the hopes that the cook finally learned to make food?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Kind of a funny question to ask an obvious troll don'cha think? Do you expect to receive a genuine response from someone who has shown repeatedly that he or she isn't here to engage in good faith?AunBear89 said:
Who said anything about "mentally owned!?" What does that even mean?
Tell me something, MENSA, do keep tuning in to a show you hate thinking that some day it won't suck? Do you keep eating at the same cr@ppy place in the hopes that the cook finally learned to make food?
Bubbles are safe
Was that an intentional ironic take on an ironic post?Unit2Sucks said:Kind of a funny question to ask an obvious troll don'cha think? Do you expect to receive a genuine response from someone who has shown repeatedly that he or she isn't here to engage in good faith?AunBear89 said:
Who said anything about "mentally owned!?" What does that even mean?
Tell me something, MENSA, do keep tuning in to a show you hate thinking that some day it won't suck? Do you keep eating at the same cr@ppy place in the hopes that the cook finally learned to make food?
Guy proudly professes to dismiss that which he does not know, and doesn't actually think he has to show why such a claim is wrong/correct because...he says so. Then Guy #2 shares in rejoice by claiming it's another guy that's a "troll in bad faith"?
LMAO
GBear4Life said:
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
I don't keep reading people with a long, demonstrated track record of exaggerations and lies. So yes, Coulter is out. It's not sight-unseen, it's based on real history.
I treat those on the left the same way, though I do notice that the crazies seem to get less purchase there than on the right wing.
FIFYsycasey said:GBear4Life said:
What facts and spin do you object to in the Coulter column? Or is not engaging with it and dismissing the contents by virtue of who's sharing it simply more convenient?
I don't keep reading people with a long, demonstrated track record of exaggerations and lies. So yes, Coulter is out. It's not sight-unseen, it's based on real history.
[I don't like her politics]
lol no you do notQuote:
I treat those on the left the same way
No wonder liberals are always seemingly reflexively and nonsensically arguing against facts and perspectives voiced or written by "conservatives"
It's because they don't read them.
It's because they don't read them.
Okay, thanks for telling me what I do and don't do in real life, random Internet stranger.GBear4Life said:
lol no you do not
GBear4Life said:
No wonder liberals are always seemingly reflexively and nonsensically arguing against facts and perspectives voiced or written by "conservatives"
It's because they don't read them.
Actually, liberals do read literature... conservatives are the ones that censor and burn the stuff they don't like or agree with.
Sorry, nothing wreaks of ignorant bubble boy mentality more than:
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
Hey all you RWNJs, we would be happy to talk about media bias after you read everything posted on the daily koz in the past 15 years. Only once you've done and willing to speak specifically to what you object to can we have a valid discussion. Until then, please go cry it out somewhere else.
lol *** are you talking about?Unit2Sucks said:
Hey all you RWNJs, we would be happy to talk about media bias after you read everything posted on the daily koz in the past 15 years. Only once you've done and willing to speak specifically to what you object to can we have a valid discussion. Until then, please go cry it out somewhere else.
And I'm sure you've read every article I've linked to that refutes your "facts" about immigration and gun control, right? Always engaged with the substance of those, right?GBear4Life said:
Sorry, nothing wreaks of ignorant bubble boy mentality more than:
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
Oh no wait, usually you just ignore it and move on to making the same old arguments you always make.
Spare me this ridiculous sanctimony.
GBear4Life said:
Sorry, nothing wreaks of ignorant bubble boy mentality more than:
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
- George Orwell
But you know it was a comment based on my view of your posts. So why intentionally lie about what I said or meant?sycasey said:Okay, thanks for telling me what I do and don't do in real life, random Internet stranger.GBear4Life said:
lol no you do not
If you were here in good faith you would understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that people need to waste their time (and put money in Breitbart's/Ann Coulter's pockets) before dismissing her drivel for what it is.GBear4Life said:lol *** are you talking about?Unit2Sucks said:
Hey all you RWNJs, we would be happy to talk about media bias after you read everything posted on the daily koz in the past 15 years. Only once you've done and willing to speak specifically to what you object to can we have a valid discussion. Until then, please go cry it out somewhere else.
We're not talking about an article from a journalist or a reputed pundit, we're talking about a person who has made a career out of trolling america.
Come to think of it, I guess I can see how you fail to understand.
What's with this whataboutism and intentionally playing dense?sycasey said:And I'm sure you've read every article I've linked to that refutes your "facts" about immigration and gun control, right? Always engaged with the substance of those, right?GBear4Life said:
Sorry, nothing wreaks of ignorant bubble boy mentality more than:
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
Oh no wait, usually you just ignore it and move on to making the same old arguments you always make.
Spare me this ridiculous sanctimony.
I'm specifically talking about being shown an article, and dismissing it without even reading it, something you and others have admitted.
And now you're doubling down by trying to point the finger at other people who AREN'T DOING THAT
Sad!
Notice how I didn't even make a claim about the column. I simply asked what its flaws were, and the reasonable justifications to dismiss it. That "it's Ann Coulter" is not a valid argument.
THEN IT SHOULD BE QUITE EASY AND SIMPLE TO SHOW WHY ITS UNWORTHYUnit2Sucks said:If you were here in good faith you would understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that people need to waste their time (and put money in Breitbart's/Ann Coulter's pockets) before dismissing her drivel for what it is.GBear4Life said:lol *** are you talking about?Unit2Sucks said:
Hey all you RWNJs, we would be happy to talk about media bias after you read everything posted on the daily koz in the past 15 years. Only once you've done and willing to speak specifically to what you object to can we have a valid discussion. Until then, please go cry it out somewhere else.
We're not talking about an article from a journalist or a reputed pundit, we're talking about a person who has made a career out of trolling america.
Come to think of it, I guess I can see how you fail to understand.
GBear4Life said:What's with this whataboutism and intentionally playing dense?sycasey said:And I'm sure you've read every article I've linked to that refutes your "facts" about immigration and gun control, right? Always engaged with the substance of those, right?GBear4Life said:
Sorry, nothing wreaks of ignorant bubble boy mentality more than:
*Somebody posts column about thread topic offering another perspective
*Thread waxes poetic about their own superior intellectual and moral capacities by dismissing poster who shared it and writer of column WITHOUT even reading it...
*Another Poster points out how hypocritical, ignorant and anti-intellectual it is for a group of people who piss and moan about another ideology's propensity for said behavior and sheltered behavior to exhibit the exact same behavior (if you're tired of a pundit, by all means don't read it -- but then to dismiss its contents without reading it and addressing the facts, contents, and spin of the piece? WEAK SAUCE but classic deflection tactic in debate).
The logic of feeling entitled to reject out-of-hand the merits of content based on who penned it is so stupid, so idiotic, so arrogant, so self-indulgent, so hypocritical that you'd think it was a parody act.
Oh no wait, usually you just ignore it and move on to making the same old arguments you always make.
Spare me this ridiculous sanctimony.
I'm specifically talking about being shown an article, and dismissing it without even reading it, something you and others have admitted.
And now you're doubling down by trying to point the finger at other people who AREN'T DOING THAT
Sad!
Notice how I didn't even make a claim about the column. I simply asked what its flaws were, and the reasonable justifications to dismiss it. That "it's Ann Coulter" is not a valid argument.
Everyone makes decisions about what to read and what not to read. You do too. None of this is special.
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
GBear4Life said:
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
Ahem... you're the one that seems triggered.
Nice, classic rhetorical tactic.NYCGOBEARS said:GBear4Life said:
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
Ahem... you're the one that seems triggered.
GBear4Life said:
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
It's because she lies and makes s*** up.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
That doesn't address your willingness to comment on commentary and content without reading it.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
It's because she lies and makes s*** up.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
You've lied in this thread, but it wouldn't justify me dismissing a specific point of view and commentary you have without actually reading it and addressing the components that, in my view, render it ridiculous.
Again, Coulter is so triggering you guys can't even see straight. This isn't about ANN COULTER. It's about "YOU" [GUYS] rejecting what you literally do not know.
Gotta love it.
GBear4Life said:That doesn't address your willingness to comment on commentary and content without reading it.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
That's really what it is. Her controversial trolling isn't really what triggers snowflake liberals, it's the combination of trolling + her politics that really does damage. Trolling, in and of itself, is of no bother to BI posters.
It's because she lies and makes s*** up.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
You've lied in this thread, but it wouldn't justify me dismissing a specific point of view and commentary you have without actually reading it and addressing the components that, in my view, render it ridiculous.
Again, Coulter is so triggering you guys can't even see straight. This isn't about ANN COULTER. It's about "YOU" [GUYS] rejecting what you literally do not know.
Gotta love it.
When did I lie, exactly? What is your evidence for that claim?
I humored.
The article is a clear political hit from one side against the other.
It took me 5 seconds to debunk he repeated claims of lack of past coverage - and I watched CNN the last couple of days and her claims are unfounded.
She continually lavishes praise on any conservatives and heaps ridicule upon democrats. She does not give a clear accounting of affiliations when it is not in her favor.
Par for the course for a deliberately misleading and politically biased person such as her.
It is the exact type of work I have - by reading the drivel for years - come to expect from her.
It is 20 minutes of my life (reading and researching) that I can never have back.
Completely understand why someone would not want to bother with taking time out of their lives to read it.
I have conservative friends who love to try and get me to listen to Ben Shapiro and the like using the same arguments you are using on others to read the Coulter article. Every time I humor them, I lose time off my life.
Coulter is predictably predictable. Nothing in there that you would find suprising, just spun to the hilt to show 50% of what is actually out there.
The article is a clear political hit from one side against the other.
It took me 5 seconds to debunk he repeated claims of lack of past coverage - and I watched CNN the last couple of days and her claims are unfounded.
She continually lavishes praise on any conservatives and heaps ridicule upon democrats. She does not give a clear accounting of affiliations when it is not in her favor.
Par for the course for a deliberately misleading and politically biased person such as her.
It is the exact type of work I have - by reading the drivel for years - come to expect from her.
It is 20 minutes of my life (reading and researching) that I can never have back.
Completely understand why someone would not want to bother with taking time out of their lives to read it.
I have conservative friends who love to try and get me to listen to Ben Shapiro and the like using the same arguments you are using on others to read the Coulter article. Every time I humor them, I lose time off my life.
Coulter is predictably predictable. Nothing in there that you would find suprising, just spun to the hilt to show 50% of what is actually out there.
Not an article. An opinion piece. Learn the difference and then you can talk with the grownups.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
You mean when I referenced her "column" lolAunBear89 said:
Not an article. An opinion piece. Learn the difference and then you can talk with the grownups.
GBear4Life said:You mean when I referenced her "column" lolAunBear89 said:
Not an article. An opinion piece. Learn the difference and then you can talk with the grownups.
Bless your heart... no, dear boy, I mean when you typed: "I'm specifically talking about being shown an article, ..."
Try to keep up. It really slows things down when we have to explain things to you.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Featured Stories
See All
Washington Safety Tristan Dunn Signs With Cal
by Jim McGill
Bears Raise the Bar in Decisive 89-63 Win Over Temple
by Jim McGill