Poll of the Day > Is nobody watching the Kavanugh stream?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
GreenKnight127 09/28/18 6:40:52 PM #101:	Mead posted... GreenKnight127 posted... Mead posted... @GreenKnight127 Im a little unclear on your position could you please post 8 more paragraphs to clarify what you think Ohhh c'mon now, Mead. You know every time I make a post you vigorously touch yourself ;) You're welcome. Umm I do that regardless I.......brief loss of words.... ...like your style... --- ~Gamefaqs logic: Q: If it's so obviously a troll topic...why are you responding to it? A: "Because I have to tell them it's a troll topic!" facepalm <cite>GreenKnight127 posted [p:909625362] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>@GreenKnight127 Im a little unclear on your position could you please post 8 more paragraphs to clarify what you think</quote> Ohhh c'mon now, Mead. You know every time I make a post you vigorously touch yourself ;) You're welcome.</quote> Umm I do that regardless</quote> I.......brief loss of words.... ...like your style...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/28/18 7:04:28 PM #102:	Troll_Police_ posted... find out if he is guilty, and if you can prove it, THEN tear his fucking life down that poor fucker. Minor problem - the people responsible for actually doing the investigation and overseeing the process weren't doing their fucking jobs because it was politically inconvenient due to a looming election. Republicans were basically using the rather circular logic that "There's no evidence that he's guilty, so he must be innocent, and since he's innocent there's no need for an investigation to find evidence of guilt." If they'd done their fucking jobs and actually vetted the candidate like they were supposed to, we could have avoided this mess. OhhhJa posted... Whatabout This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" GreenKnight127 posted... People watch too many movies. Everyone thinks the FBI is this magical organization with all the latest technology and secret gadgets like the Men in Black or some shit, and they can get to the bottom of a case within hours that would take normal law enforcement years. Couldn't be further from the truth. The investigation into Anita Hill's similar accusations against Clarence Thomas took three days. GreenKnight127 posted... The FBI doesn't come to conclusions. They just collect data. And they've already got that data No, they don't have that data. They don't have sworn testimony from Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick, or Mark Judge, or his ex-girlfriend that says Judge once confessed to her to having participated in group sex with a drunk girl in high school (which sounds very similar to the allegations Swetnick made). They haven't investigated any of the allegations (and the judicial committee didn't even bother to call them up to submit testimony the way they asked Ford to). There are still a lot of questions. A more complete picture with more complete information can only be beneficial to the innocent party (whoever that is). GreenKnight127 posted... The democrats are just dragging it out because they want that fucking seat so bad. If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on over this, I hear Merrick Garland isn't doing much these days. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:909626702] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>Troll_Police_ posted...</cite> <quote>find out if he is guilty, and if you can prove it, THEN tear his fucking life down that poor fucker.</quote> Minor problem - the people responsible for actually doing the investigation and overseeing the process weren't doing their fucking jobs because it was politically inconvenient due to a looming election. Republicans were basically using the rather circular logic that "There's no evidence that he's guilty, so he must be innocent, and since he's innocent there's no need for an investigation to find evidence of guilt." If they'd done their fucking jobs and actually vetted the candidate like they were supposed to, we could have avoided this mess. <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Whatabout</quote> This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>People watch too many movies. Everyone thinks the FBI is this magical organization with all the latest technology and secret gadgets like the Men in Black or some shit, and they can get to the bottom of a case within hours that would take normal law enforcement years. Couldn't be further from the truth. </quote> The investigation into Anita Hill's similar accusations against Clarence Thomas took three days. <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>The FBI doesn't come to conclusions. They just collect data. And they've already got that data</quote> No, they don't have that data. They don't have sworn testimony from Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick, or Mark Judge, or his ex-girlfriend that says Judge once confessed to her to having participated in group sex with a drunk girl in high school (which sounds very similar to the allegations Swetnick made). They haven't investigated any of the allegations (and the judicial committee didn't even bother to call them up to submit testimony the way they asked Ford to). There are still a lot of questions. A more complete picture with more complete information can only be beneficial to the innocent party (whoever that is). <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>The democrats are just dragging it out because they want that fucking seat so bad.</quote> If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on over this, I hear Merrick Garland isn't doing much these days.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/28/18 7:19:41 PM #103:	darkknight109 posted... This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:909627568] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?"</quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/28/18 7:40:56 PM #104:	OhhhJa posted... darkknight109 posted... This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria Not so. His post is a valid argument, because he is pointing out errors in the Republicans' own logic. Specifically, the Republicans' attempt to ram through a nomination without proper oversight because of a looming election is incongruous with the justification they used during the last election cycle, which is that "judges should not be selected within a year of an election". The Republicans in 2016 established that it was OK to slow-walk a nomination if an election was coming up, ergo the Democrats doing the same in 2018 is fair play. You can like both or hate both, but pointing out the logical inconsistency in the Republican position is not, in and of itself, a logical inconsistency. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:909628741] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?"</quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria</quote> Not so. His post is a valid argument, because he is pointing out errors in the Republicans' own logic. Specifically, the Republicans' attempt to ram through a nomination without proper oversight because of a looming election is incongruous with the justification they used during the last election cycle, which is that "judges should not be selected within a year of an election". The Republicans in 2016 established that it was OK to slow-walk a nomination if an election was coming up, ergo the Democrats doing the same in 2018 is fair play. You can like both or hate both, but pointing out the logical inconsistency in the Republican position is not, in and of itself, a logical inconsistency.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/28/18 7:45:03 PM #105:	darkknight109 posted... OhhhJa posted... darkknight109 posted... This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria Not so. His post is a valid argument, because he is pointing out errors in the Republicans' own logic. Specifically, the Republicans' attempt to ram through a nomination without proper oversight because of a looming election is incongruous with the justification they used during the last election cycle, which is that "judges should not be selected within a year of an election". The Republicans in 2016 established that it was OK to slow-walk a nomination if an election was coming up, ergo the Democrats doing the same in 2018 is fair play. You can like both or hate both, but pointing out the logical inconsistency in the Republican position is not, in and of itself, a logical inconsistency. How is this any different from the numerous whatabout responses in reference to bringing up Obama's massive deportation that the left turned a blind eye to while blasting trump for the same thing? It doesn't matter how you try to frame it. It's textbook whataboutism <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:909628932] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?"</quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque His post fits perfectly with that criteria</quote> Not so. His post is a valid argument, because he is pointing out errors in the Republicans' own logic. Specifically, the Republicans' attempt to ram through a nomination without proper oversight because of a looming election is incongruous with the justification they used during the last election cycle, which is that "judges should not be selected within a year of an election". The Republicans in 2016 established that it was OK to slow-walk a nomination if an election was coming up, ergo the Democrats doing the same in 2018 is fair play. You can like both or hate both, but pointing out the logical inconsistency in the Republican position is not, in and of itself, a logical inconsistency.</quote> How is this any different from the numerous whatabout responses in reference to bringing up Obama's massive deportation that the left turned a blind eye to while blasting trump for the same thing? It doesn't matter how you try to frame it. It's textbook whataboutism</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/28/18 9:01:25 PM #106:	OhhhJa posted... How is this any different from the numerous whatabout responses in reference to bringing up Obama's massive deportation that the left turned a blind eye to while blasting trump for the same thing? Pointing out hypocrisy or blindness on an issue - including the one you're referencing - is not whataboutism/ Saying "the Republicans are using a totally different standard in 2018 now that they're in power than the one they used in 2016 when they're out of power and that's horrible" is not whataboutism. If he had said "it's OK for the Democrats to be obstructionist; after all, Republicans did it in 2018", that's whataboutism, because it's using previous bad behaviour by an opposed party to justify current bad behaviour. Personally, as I've said several times, I acknowledge that the Democrats are engaging in pure partisan gamesmanship and that is absolutely a negative; I also don't care, because the Republicans are just as guilty of it, so seeing it used against them brings me satisfaction on a purely personal level, and hopefully after this shitshow both groups will take a step back and try and restore some sense of sanity to judicial nominations (note: this won't happen, but I like to pretend it will). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:909632728] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>How is this any different from the numerous whatabout responses in reference to bringing up Obama's massive deportation that the left turned a blind eye to while blasting trump for the same thing? </quote> Pointing out hypocrisy or blindness on an issue - including the one you're referencing - is not whataboutism/ Saying "the Republicans are using a totally different standard in 2018 now that they're in power than the one they used in 2016 when they're out of power and that's horrible" is not whataboutism. If he had said "it's OK for the Democrats to be obstructionist; after all, Republicans did it in 2018", that's whataboutism, because it's using previous bad behaviour by an opposed party to justify current bad behaviour. Personally, as I've said several times, I acknowledge that the Democrats are engaging in pure partisan gamesmanship and that is absolutely a negative; I also don't care, because the Republicans are just as guilty of it, so seeing it used against them brings me satisfaction on a purely personal level, and hopefully after this shitshow both groups will take a step back and try and restore some sense of sanity to judicial nominations (note: this won't happen, but I like to pretend it will).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NightMareBunny 09/28/18 9:04:58 PM #107:	Lokarin posted... Lets say 'Kavanugh' was an outright child abuser who killed 700 people in a fire bombing and routinely holds Satanic masses... HOW... like, for real, HOW does that affect his qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice? Provide an accusation that he cheated on a test... or did SOMETHING RELATED TO HIS POSITION more people should just latch onto this and say how stupid this sounds... that's like saying how does someone being a psychotic murderer affect his or her qualifications to be a police officer? do you even listen to yourself --- Gamefaqs Nintendo Discord Server: https://discord.gg/v9ut5hv <cite>NightMareBunny posted [p:909632871] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lokarin posted...</cite> <quote>Lets say 'Kavanugh' was an outright child abuser who killed 700 people in a fire bombing and routinely holds Satanic masses... HOW... like, for real, HOW does that affect his qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice? Provide an accusation that he cheated on a test... or did SOMETHING RELATED TO HIS POSITION</quote> more people should just latch onto this and say how stupid this sounds... that's like saying how does someone being a psychotic murderer affect his or her qualifications to be a police officer? do you even listen to yourself</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 09/28/18 9:08:53 PM #108:	GreenKnight127 posted... That's like walking down the street and seeing a man getting the shit beaten out of him by 2 guys wearing ski-masks......but you won't see it as assault, because you don't have all the information yet to form such an opinion. I mean, the guy getting his shit kicked in might be a Nazi. He deserves it then and those two men are heroes. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:909633062] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>That's like walking down the street and seeing a man getting the shit beaten out of him by 2 guys wearing ski-masks......but you won't see it as assault, because you don't have all the information yet to form such an opinion.</quote> I mean, the guy getting his shit kicked in might be a Nazi. He deserves it then and those two men are heroes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Poll of the Day > Is nobody watching the Kavanugh stream? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Is nobody watching the Kavanugh stream?