|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Oct 20, 2024 12:10:38 GMT -8
I'm amazed how difficult it is for some to directly address a question. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 20, 2024 12:26:26 GMT -8
I'm amazed how difficult it is for some to directly address a question. Or to be intellectually honest... Your question was answered. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Oct 21, 2024 14:40:19 GMT -8
Not illegal. Netanyahu showing up to Mar-A-Lago, on the other hand...What's the difference? Come on, you got to admit if the Russians came to support Trump the left would go bananas. There is Way too much foreign influence in our elections, on Both sides of the aisle. Its an issue that should be fixed on a bipartisan level. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 9:24:15 GMT -8
Trump has had numerous events canceled in the last two weeks. A virtual roundtable with Gabbard and RFK Jr. was canceled today. This comes on the heels of the 60 Minutes cancelation, the CNBC spot, the NBC spot, the NRA appearance and any chance of a second debate with Harris. The Trump campaign is calling it "exhaustion."
Odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Oct 22, 2024 12:53:05 GMT -8
Trump has had numerous events canceled in the last two weeks. A virtual roundtable with Gabbard and RFK Jr. was canceled today. This comes on the heels of the 60 Minutes cancelation, the CNBC spot, the NBC spot, the NRA appearance and any chance of a second debate with Harris. The Trump campaign is calling it "exhaustion." Odd. He's too old to run, same as Biden. A presidential campaign is an ultra marathon. That's not something that people should do in their 70s or 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 13:02:55 GMT -8
"In the meeting, Trump maintained a dignified posture and expressed sympathy to Guillén’s mother. “I saw what happened to your daughter Vanessa, who was a spectacular person, and respected and loved by everybody, including in the military,” Trump said. Later in the conversation, he made a promise: “If I can help you out with the funeral, I’ll help—I’ll help you with that,” he said. “I’ll help you out. Financially, I’ll help you.”
According to a person close to Trump at the time, the president was agitated by McCarthy’s comments and raised questions about the severity of the punishments dispensed to senior officers and noncommissioned officers.
In an Oval Office meeting on December 4, 2020, officials gathered to discuss a separate national-security issue. Toward the end of the discussion, Trump asked for an update on the McCarthy investigation. Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense (Trump had fired his predecessor, Mark Esper, three weeks earlier, writing in a tweet, “Mark Esper has been terminated”), was in attendance, along with Miller’s chief of staff, Kash Patel. At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?”
According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000.
Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f****** Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “f****** people, trying to rip me off.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Oct 22, 2024 19:02:31 GMT -8
Well if it's all true, why any Latino would vote for Trump is beyond me. SMH
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 22, 2024 19:43:34 GMT -8
"In the meeting, Trump maintained a dignified posture and expressed sympathy to Guillén’s mother. “I saw what happened to your daughter Vanessa, who was a spectacular person, and respected and loved by everybody, including in the military,” Trump said. Later in the conversation, he made a promise: “If I can help you out with the funeral, I’ll help—I’ll help you with that,” he said. “I’ll help you out. Financially, I’ll help you.” According to a person close to Trump at the time, the president was agitated by McCarthy’s comments and raised questions about the severity of the punishments dispensed to senior officers and noncommissioned officers. In an Oval Office meeting on December 4, 2020, officials gathered to discuss a separate national-security issue. Toward the end of the discussion, Trump asked for an update on the McCarthy investigation. Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense (Trump had fired his predecessor, Mark Esper, three weeks earlier, writing in a tweet, “Mark Esper has been terminated”), was in attendance, along with Miller’s chief of staff, Kash Patel. At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?” According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000. Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f****** Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “f****** people, trying to rip me off.” Ryan, you like to tell people to do digging before quoting, and you say it in a disparaging way. Well, right back atcha. nypost.com/2024/10/22/us-news/vanessa-guillens-sister-and-family-attorney-slam-atlantic-editor-for-claiming-trump-dissed-murdered-army-servicewoman/ |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 19:55:55 GMT -8
"In the meeting, Trump maintained a dignified posture and expressed sympathy to Guillén’s mother. “I saw what happened to your daughter Vanessa, who was a spectacular person, and respected and loved by everybody, including in the military,” Trump said. Later in the conversation, he made a promise: “If I can help you out with the funeral, I’ll help—I’ll help you with that,” he said. “I’ll help you out. Financially, I’ll help you.” According to a person close to Trump at the time, the president was agitated by McCarthy’s comments and raised questions about the severity of the punishments dispensed to senior officers and noncommissioned officers. In an Oval Office meeting on December 4, 2020, officials gathered to discuss a separate national-security issue. Toward the end of the discussion, Trump asked for an update on the McCarthy investigation. Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense (Trump had fired his predecessor, Mark Esper, three weeks earlier, writing in a tweet, “Mark Esper has been terminated”), was in attendance, along with Miller’s chief of staff, Kash Patel. At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?” According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000. Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f****** Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “f****** people, trying to rip me off.” Ryan, you like to tell people to do digging before quoting, and you say it in a disparaging way. Well, right back atcha. nypost.com/2024/10/22/us-news/vanessa-guillens-sister-and-family-attorney-slam-atlantic-editor-for-claiming-trump-dissed-murdered-army-servicewoman/I just posted an excerpt from an article. You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of... |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 22, 2024 20:37:02 GMT -8
I just posted an excerpt from an article. You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of... Uh, you didn't do any digging. You posted out of haste without fact checking. I'm sure you were frothing at the mouth to share that story. One that horrible should be vetted very well before posting it. If you're talking about me saying that you talk to people "in a disparaging way" then yeah, that's true. The difference is, the way I went about it was childs play, versus your methods. The moral of the story is practice what you preach, and fact check first. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 20:53:11 GMT -8
I just posted an excerpt from an article. You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of... Uh, you didn't do any digging. You posted out of haste without fact checking. I'm sure you were frothing at the mouth to share that story. One that horrible should be vetted very well before posting it. If you're talking about me saying that you talk to people "in a disparaging way" then yeah, that's true. The difference is, the way I went about it was childs play, versus your methods. The moral of the story is practice what you preach, and fact check first. Digging? How am I supposed to dig for a rebuttal that didn't exist when I posted the original story? The story you're linking was posted an hour ago. The original story was published at 12:38 local time this afternoon. Sorry for not digging for something from the future? But...sure. I was not "frothing at the mouth" to do anything. I posted an excerpt without commentary. It looks like you were frothing at the mouth, though, to run with a counterclaim from the New York Post, which doesn't even absolve Trump of the comments reported. The moral of the story is learn how journalism works and stop trying to be the gotcha police....because this is another failure. You're free to believe what you want, I think we have enough evidence to at least believe in the possibility that the original sourcing is true and accurate. If the source is who I believe it to be, I believe them. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 22, 2024 21:16:59 GMT -8
Uh, you didn't do any digging. You posted out of haste without fact checking. I'm sure you were frothing at the mouth to share that story. One that horrible should be vetted very well before posting it. If you're talking about me saying that you talk to people "in a disparaging way" then yeah, that's true. The difference is, the way I went about it was childs play, versus your methods. The moral of the story is practice what you preach, and fact check first. Digging? How am I supposed to dig for a rebuttal that didn't exist when I posted the original story? The story you're linking was posted an hour ago. The original story was published at 12:38 local time this afternoon. Sorry for not digging for something from the future? But...sure. I was not "frothing at the mouth" to do anything. I posted an excerpt without commentary. It looks like you were frothing at the mouth, though, to run with a counterclaim from the New York Post, which doesn't even absolve Trump of the comments reported. The moral of the story is learn how journalism works and stop trying to be the gotcha police....because this is another failure. You're free to believe what you want, I think we have enough evidence to at least believe in the possibility that the original sourcing is true and accurate. If the source is who I believe it to be, I believe them. Ha!!! the failure would be all yours Ryan. That's absolutely clear. I know that hurts, but you'll get over it. Of course you jumped at the chance to post that without thinking that there might be another side to the story like the family, of all people, refuting it. How about not jumping at a story that supposedly happened 4 years ago, and then mysteriously shows up a couple of weeks away from the election. You know what they say about fools, they don't have any patience. Me, frothing at the mouth? Uh, no. That would be you, definitely. You decided to jump on it. It was such a horrible story, and one I'd never heard before that it compelled me to look into it, which is what someone should do, especially one so horrible. That's normal. With one click, I found the article about the family refuting it. So simple. It had zero to do with it being a gotcha moment. It was all about vetting a horrible story posted by a person that hates the individual whom the article was about. The New York Post itself didn't comment on it, but they sure published it which is in a way absolving him from it, and more importantly the family sure absolved him from it. Their Attorney called Goldberg a liar. The second moral of the story for you is, don't believe everything you read, and don't jump the gun on something that's timed very suspiciously without giving it some time to corroborate itself, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 21:29:29 GMT -8
Digging? How am I supposed to dig for a rebuttal that didn't exist when I posted the original story? The story you're linking was posted an hour ago. The original story was published at 12:38 local time this afternoon. Sorry for not digging for something from the future? But...sure. I was not "frothing at the mouth" to do anything. I posted an excerpt without commentary. It looks like you were frothing at the mouth, though, to run with a counterclaim from the New York Post, which doesn't even absolve Trump of the comments reported. The moral of the story is learn how journalism works and stop trying to be the gotcha police....because this is another failure. You're free to believe what you want, I think we have enough evidence to at least believe in the possibility that the original sourcing is true and accurate. If the source is who I believe it to be, I believe them. Ha!!! the failure would be all yours Ryan. That's absolutely clear. I know that hurts, but you'll get over it. Of course you jumped at the chance to post that without thinking that there might be another side to the story like the family, of all people, refuting it. How about not jumping at a story that supposedly happened 4 years ago, and then mysteriously shows up a couple of weeks away from the election. You know what they say about fools, they don't have any patience. Me, frothing at the mouth? Uh, no. That would be you, definitely. You decided to jump on it. It was such a horrible story, and one I'd never heard before that it compelled me to look into it, which is what someone should do, especially one so horrible. That's normal. With one click, I found the article about the family refuting it. So simple. It had zero to do with it being a gotcha moment. It was all about vetting a horrible story posted by a person that hates the individual whom the article was about. The New York Post itself didn't comment on it, but they sure published it which is in a way absolving him from it, and more importantly the family sure absolved him from it. Their Attorney called Goldberg a liar. The second moral of the story for you is, don't believe everything you read, and don't jump the gun on something that's timed very suspiciously without giving it some time to corroborate itself, or not. I posted an excerpt, without commentary. Again. No commentary. When you consider the copious amounts of evidence we have that are *on the record* with regards to the behavior Trump displays towards the military, I'm going to weigh that a little more heavily than I would normally. Seems like standard stuff. You can regurgitate the greatest hits, that's up to you. The article you're referencing doesn't tell me anything, though. A person who voted for Trump who wasn't in the room when the comments were made? Color me unmoved. I'm sure not going to believe Trump or Mark Meadows. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 22, 2024 22:07:43 GMT -8
Ha!!! the failure would be all yours Ryan. That's absolutely clear. I know that hurts, but you'll get over it. Of course you jumped at the chance to post that without thinking that there might be another side to the story like the family, of all people, refuting it. How about not jumping at a story that supposedly happened 4 years ago, and then mysteriously shows up a couple of weeks away from the election. You know what they say about fools, they don't have any patience. Me, frothing at the mouth? Uh, no. That would be you, definitely. You decided to jump on it. It was such a horrible story, and one I'd never heard before that it compelled me to look into it, which is what someone should do, especially one so horrible. That's normal. With one click, I found the article about the family refuting it. So simple. It had zero to do with it being a gotcha moment. It was all about vetting a horrible story posted by a person that hates the individual whom the article was about. The New York Post itself didn't comment on it, but they sure published it which is in a way absolving him from it, and more importantly the family sure absolved him from it. Their Attorney called Goldberg a liar. The second moral of the story for you is, don't believe everything you read, and don't jump the gun on something that's timed very suspiciously without giving it some time to corroborate itself, or not. I posted an excerpt, without commentary. Again. No commentary. When you consider the copious amounts of evidence we have that are *on the record* with regards to the behavior Trump displays towards the military, I'm going to weigh that a little more heavily than I would normally. Seems like standard stuff. You can regurgitate the greatest hits, that's up to you. The article you're referencing doesn't tell me anything, though. A person who voted for Trump who wasn't in the room when the comments were made? Color me unmoved. I'm sure not going to believe Trump or Mark Meadows. Of course the article doesn't tell you anything. That's not a shock. It wasn't Trump or Mark Meadows that was refuting it on the article. It was her own family for gosh sakes. None of her other family members agreed either. Ok, so you're calling the deceased person's sister a liar. Wow. That's on you. Sheesh. Do you actually think the sister wouldn't be upset at Trump and not vote for him if he did say those things? On the contrary, she's did vote for him because of how he treated the family. The Attorney was in the room and she says Trump didn't say it, and she says Gregory's lying about it. I'm not surprised that you would take the word of Gregory over Vanessa Guillen's own sister, since you absolutely despise Trump, but that hits a whole new low level. Have at it. You should be more responsible than that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 22, 2024 22:42:56 GMT -8
I posted an excerpt, without commentary. Again. No commentary. When you consider the copious amounts of evidence we have that are *on the record* with regards to the behavior Trump displays towards the military, I'm going to weigh that a little more heavily than I would normally. Seems like standard stuff. You can regurgitate the greatest hits, that's up to you. The article you're referencing doesn't tell me anything, though. A person who voted for Trump who wasn't in the room when the comments were made? Color me unmoved. I'm sure not going to believe Trump or Mark Meadows. Of course the article doesn't tell you anything. That's not a shock. It wasn't Trump or Mark Meadows that was refuting it on the article. It was her own family for gosh sakes. None of her other family members agreed either. Ok, so you're calling the deceased person's sister a liar. Wow. That's on you. Sheesh. Do you actually think the sister wouldn't be upset at Trump and not vote for him if he did say those things? On the contrary, she's did vote for him because of how he treated the family. The Attorney was in the room and she says Trump didn't say it, and she says Gregory's lying about it. I'm not surprised that you would take the word of Gregory over Vanessa Guillen's own sister, since you absolutely despise Trump, but that hits a whole new low level. Have at it. You should be more responsible than that. Means nothing if they weren't there to hear what was actually said. Goldberg had multiple sources who were present at the meeting, along with notes taken at the meeting. It's pretty clear who at least one of the sources is, and their credibility is rock solid. You can save your fake outrage, it's not my issue that you're naive enough to believe one side and not the other, ignoring the evidence we already have from a multitude of situations - "Suckers and losers" comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 22, 2024 23:27:42 GMT -8
Of course the article doesn't tell you anything. That's not a shock. It wasn't Trump or Mark Meadows that was refuting it on the article. It was her own family for gosh sakes. None of her other family members agreed either. Ok, so you're calling the deceased person's sister a liar. Wow. That's on you. Sheesh. Do you actually think the sister wouldn't be upset at Trump and not vote for him if he did say those things? On the contrary, she's did vote for him because of how he treated the family. The Attorney was in the room and she says Trump didn't say it, and she says Gregory's lying about it. I'm not surprised that you would take the word of Gregory over Vanessa Guillen's own sister, since you absolutely despise Trump, but that hits a whole new low level. Have at it. You should be more responsible than that. Means nothing if they weren't there to hear what was actually said. Goldberg had multiple sources who were present at the meeting, along with notes taken at the meeting. It's pretty clear who at least one of the sources is, and their credibility is rock solid. You can save your fake outrage, it's not my issue that you're naive enough to believe one side and not the other, ignoring the evidence we already have from a multitude of situations - "Suckers and losers" comes to mind. No, it's not fake outrage. Oh no, it's actually very real outrage towards you when it's coming from someone who's calling the dead person's sister a liar, and the family itself. Pitiful. Of course you'll want to believe the accusations. I wouldn't expect any different from you. It's not my fault that you have that much hate inside of you that you'll stoop to that level. Again, pitiful. It wouldn't be an issue if the Family and the Attorney didn't call Goldberg a liar, and also the fact that it came out now, of course, right before the election. Shocking, huh? Why hasn't Goldberg responded to the families accusations? What's he waiting for? If he has, I haven't seen it. You have the dead daughters family on Trump's side and that's not good enough for you. You still want to disparage them. Wow. You don't think they would want to get to the bottom of that horrible remark before they support Trump? Of course they would. Again, is it shocking that you'll stoop to that level since you despise the person in question? No, but I thought you just might have a little more dignity than to call the sister/family a liar. That's on you, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 8:20:38 GMT -8
Means nothing if they weren't there to hear what was actually said. Goldberg had multiple sources who were present at the meeting, along with notes taken at the meeting. It's pretty clear who at least one of the sources is, and their credibility is rock solid. You can save your fake outrage, it's not my issue that you're naive enough to believe one side and not the other, ignoring the evidence we already have from a multitude of situations - "Suckers and losers" comes to mind. No, it's not fake outrage. Oh no, it's actually very real outrage towards you when it's coming from someone who's calling the dead person's sister a liar, and the family itself. Pitiful. Of course you'll want to believe the accusations. I wouldn't expect any different from you. It's not my fault that you have that much hate inside of you that you'll stoop to that level. Again, pitiful. It wouldn't be an issue if the Family and the Attorney didn't call Goldberg a liar, and also the fact that it came out now, of course, right before the election. Shocking, huh? Why hasn't Goldberg responded to the families accusations? What's he waiting for? If he has, I haven't seen it. You have the dead daughters family on Trump's side and that's not good enough for you. You still want to disparage them. Wow. You don't think they would want to get to the bottom of that horrible remark before they support Trump? Of course they would. Again, is it shocking that you'll stoop to that level since you despise the person in question? No, but I thought you just might have a little more dignity than to call the sister/family a liar. That's on you, unfortunately. Then it's misplaced and misguided. I'm not calling anyone a liar - She wasn't THERE, so she can't KNOW. It's pretty simple to understand that concept. Nobody else in the family is quoted, so there's nobody else on the record. What I "want to believe" doesn't matter, the evidence we have of similar behavior? That does. This is how little you pay attention and how I know how uninformed you are. It's what makes your insults and attacks so wholly predictable. Goldberg DID respond, in a live interview....last night, immediately after the story came out. You can find it, I'm not doing the work for you. Again, your fake outrage is misplaced, but I'm sure you'll be praying for the Guillen family while you keep slandering me. What you failed to do, anywhere in that pathetic rant, is address the entirety of the behavior we KNOW actually TOOK PLACE. I get that it doesn't mesh with your agenda, but you'd actually be taken slightly more seriously if you bothered to do even the bare minimum. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 23, 2024 8:45:08 GMT -8
No, it's not fake outrage. Oh no, it's actually very real outrage towards you when it's coming from someone who's calling the dead person's sister a liar, and the family itself. Pitiful. Of course you'll want to believe the accusations. I wouldn't expect any different from you. It's not my fault that you have that much hate inside of you that you'll stoop to that level. Again, pitiful. It wouldn't be an issue if the Family and the Attorney didn't call Goldberg a liar, and also the fact that it came out now, of course, right before the election. Shocking, huh? Why hasn't Goldberg responded to the families accusations? What's he waiting for? If he has, I haven't seen it. You have the dead daughters family on Trump's side and that's not good enough for you. You still want to disparage them. Wow. You don't think they would want to get to the bottom of that horrible remark before they support Trump? Of course they would. Again, is it shocking that you'll stoop to that level since you despise the person in question? No, but I thought you just might have a little more dignity than to call the sister/family a liar. That's on you, unfortunately. Then it's misplaced and misguided. I'm not calling anyone a liar - She wasn't THERE, so she can't KNOW. It's pretty simple to understand that concept. Nobody else in the family is quoted, so there's nobody else on the record. What I "want to believe" doesn't matter, the evidence we have of similar behavior? That does. This is how little you pay attention and how I know how uninformed you are. It's what makes your insults and attacks so wholly predictable. Goldberg DID respond, in a live interview....last night, immediately after the story came out. You can find it, I'm not doing the work for you. Again, your fake outrage is misplaced, but I'm sure you'll be praying for the Guillen family while you keep slandering me. What you failed to do, anywhere in that pathetic rant, is address the entirety of the behavior we KNOW actually TOOK PLACE. I get that it doesn't mesh with your agenda, but you'd actually be taken slightly more seriously if you bothered to do even the bare minimum. First of all what you need to do is stop playing the victim of attacks when that's all you do all day, every day. It falls on deaf ears. You do know that your posts contain insults, right? Maybe not because it seems to be second nature for you, unfortunately. Talk about uninformed. You're the one who decided to jump at the chance to post the article without seeing if there's a rebuttal, and there sure was. Talk about pie in the face. Again, you're going to believe anybody and anything when it comes to negative press against Trump, no matter if the Attorney for a family says that he's an outright liar. Now there's a real no brainer. You're in real deep so it's actually a lost cause for you to ever be objective. Have at it. I think we all can just sigh when you're hard headed and simply say, "There goes Ryan AGAIN." I've acknowledged that Trump is no choir boy, and I wouldn't vote for him, but I try to be fair to ALL people. I'm talking about this particular incident only. You can't do that. So be it. We're used to it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 9:28:25 GMT -8
Then it's misplaced and misguided. I'm not calling anyone a liar - She wasn't THERE, so she can't KNOW. It's pretty simple to understand that concept. Nobody else in the family is quoted, so there's nobody else on the record. What I "want to believe" doesn't matter, the evidence we have of similar behavior? That does. This is how little you pay attention and how I know how uninformed you are. It's what makes your insults and attacks so wholly predictable. Goldberg DID respond, in a live interview....last night, immediately after the story came out. You can find it, I'm not doing the work for you. Again, your fake outrage is misplaced, but I'm sure you'll be praying for the Guillen family while you keep slandering me. What you failed to do, anywhere in that pathetic rant, is address the entirety of the behavior we KNOW actually TOOK PLACE. I get that it doesn't mesh with your agenda, but you'd actually be taken slightly more seriously if you bothered to do even the bare minimum. First of all what you need to do is stop playing the victim of attacks when that's all you do all day, every day. It falls on deaf ears. You do know that your posts contain insults, right? Maybe not because it seems to be second nature for you, unfortunately. Talk about uninformed. You're the one who decided to jump at the chance to post the article without seeing if there's a rebuttal, and there sure was. Talk about pie in the face. Again, you're going to believe anybody and anything when it comes to negative press against Trump, no matter if the Attorney for a family says that he's an outright liar. Now there's a real no brainer. You're in real deep so it's actually a lost cause for you to ever be objective. Have at it. I think we all can just sigh when you're hard headed and simply say, "There goes Ryan AGAIN." I've acknowledged that Trump is no choir boy, and I wouldn't vote for him, but I try to be fair to ALL people. I'm talking about this particular incident only. You can't do that. So be it. We're used to it. ....LOL. Victim? I'm just responding to you attacking me out of nowhere, without even bothering to do your own "fact checking." I'm responding to YOU. I didn't even address you. I posted an article, with NO commentary. None. And then you crafted a post, filled with inaccuracies, like I didn't do my homework for class and I'm supposed to be "sorry" for not seeing the future. And then you want to play the victim after attacking me and accusing me of being a victim. Uh, k. I posted the excerpt of the article when it was published. I then went on with my day. The rebuttal, posted SEVEN HOURS later, taken at face value by you, a conservative-leaning, excuse-making agenda pusher, wasn't something I was going to endorse, as the evidence is flimsy....at best. As far as rebuttals go, it's not strong in the slightest. I know you think there's an army of people on here that support you, there isn't. You're not cogent enough on your own two feet to figure things out for yourself. Your "fairness" is a sham, all it means is you're not willing to take a stand on the correct side of history. That's not a badge of honor, it's just a lack of fortitude. Of course you're talking about this incident only, your entire argument falls apart once you stop. But you're not even capable of doing that correctly. I believe Goldberg, you believe two people who weren't even in the room. More importantly, knowing what I know, I believe in the clear, obvious, doesn't-take-rocket-science evidence we have already. The evidence you refuse to even address. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 23, 2024 11:58:32 GMT -8
First of all what you need to do is stop playing the victim of attacks when that's all you do all day, every day. It falls on deaf ears. You do know that your posts contain insults, right? Maybe not because it seems to be second nature for you, unfortunately. Talk about uninformed. You're the one who decided to jump at the chance to post the article without seeing if there's a rebuttal, and there sure was. Talk about pie in the face. Again, you're going to believe anybody and anything when it comes to negative press against Trump, no matter if the Attorney for a family says that he's an outright liar. Now there's a real no brainer. You're in real deep so it's actually a lost cause for you to ever be objective. Have at it. I think we all can just sigh when you're hard headed and simply say, "There goes Ryan AGAIN." I've acknowledged that Trump is no choir boy, and I wouldn't vote for him, but I try to be fair to ALL people. I'm talking about this particular incident only. You can't do that. So be it. We're used to it. ....LOL. Victim? I'm just responding to you attacking me out of nowhere, without even bothering to do your own "fact checking." I'm responding to YOU. I didn't even address you. I posted an article, with NO commentary. None. And then you crafted a post, filled with inaccuracies, like I didn't do my homework for class and I'm supposed to be "sorry" for not seeing the future. And then you want to play the victim after attacking me and accusing me of being a victim. Uh, k. I posted the excerpt of the article when it was published. I then went on with my day. The rebuttal, posted SEVEN HOURS later, taken at face value by you, a conservative-leaning, excuse-making agenda pusher, wasn't something I was going to endorse, as the evidence is flimsy....at best. As far as rebuttals go, it's not strong in the slightest. I know you think there's an army of people on here that support you, there isn't. You're not cogent enough on your own two feet to figure things out for yourself. Your "fairness" is a sham, all it means is you're not willing to take a stand on the correct side of history. That's not a badge of honor, it's just a lack of fortitude. Of course you're talking about this incident only, your entire argument falls apart once you stop. But you're not even capable of doing that correctly. I believe Goldberg, you believe two people who weren't even in the room. More importantly, knowing what I know, I believe in the clear, obvious, doesn't-take-rocket-science evidence we have already. The evidence you refuse to even address. Ha!!! You decided to lazily throw out an article that ended getting refuted by the sister, family and their Attorney. Par for the course. Not shocked, again. You also don't address the suspicion of why it came it now, four years after. Hmmmm. And, color me not shocked that you'll believe Goldberg who's been called a liar by the families Attorney, and she's certainly not the only one. Yeah, you "claim" to be a victim of insults which is absolutely laughable. You're the KING of Insults. Sheesh. That's all you do. Sheesh, again. Oh poor Ryan, I didn't attack you a put of nowhere. Get a grip. I merely called you out on posting an article without first seeing if there would be a response or not. That's on you. Get over it. What, you can dish it out, but you can't take it? Wow. I never said I was a victim. I said that you continually attack posters period. Bad try. I think I personally have an army of supporters? Ha!!! Not even close, but what I do know is that there are quite a few on here who let you know how condescending, egotistical, narcissistic and belligerent you can be a lot of times. That's a fact. You don't care, and that's a fact. Your prerogative. This is one thing I've figured out. You say, this is just an Internet board, but it really shouldn't give you the free rein to be s**tty to people, but that's how you feel, and perform. Pitiful. |
|
