The âmissingâ witness long-touted by Republicans in Congress as the missing link to their probe into alleged Biden family corruption was accused Monday of being an unregistered foreign agent for China and an international arms trafficker while violating U.S. sanctions on Iran and lying to investigators, among a laundry list of other federal charges.
So yeah, another story about the 'Biden crime family' turns out to be garbage. Queue the deep state government suppressing the truth theories....
You're Ahab and I'm you're White Whale. We know how that one ends. Happens when you let people rent space in your head for free ...
You may have all you're toys and things but I pity you. There many legitimate ways to look at the same thing. Sometimes people see the same thing coming from different directions and a common ground is found, despite different POV's and other reference points. You're a glass half empty person, imo.
Ha, you're funny. Anywho....
There are often multiple valid viewpoints, and that's fine. Then there is conspiracy and lunacy. If you traffic in the latter two frequently, you don't have a right to be taken seriously. And while 'another one of your crackpot theories' is a personal argument/attack, it is also valid when we are on crackpot theory #187.
You mean your loaded questions don't get a desired response?
Why not simply re-phrase the questions to your satisfaction and answer with your opinion? I'm not trying to back you into a conversational corner. I'm trying to understand how you see Russia's level of responsibility for the war in Ukraine.
I don't desire any particular response from you beyond a fuller exposition of your opinions. On this matter of Ukraine/Russia/US, I feel like you simply want to make cryptic comments. I'm just trying to understand what you're thinking.
"Why resort to personal attacks in the first place ? Don't have a supporting argument to use to disagree ?
Well you must admit that this is a pretty one sided place and anything that goes against the grain of the majority is almost always met with derision, regardless of fact."
The personal attacks are unpleasant. I've dished it out myself. I usually do so if I feel my views are being dismissed without real consideration or if someone tries to be condescending towards me.
I think you get more of such personal attacks than others because you've posted a lot of stuff that doesn't have a lot support behind it. Sometimes you repeat something a pundit said—for instance when you kept harping on global warming as propaganda, with children being indoctrinated like so many Hitler Youth to parrot the phrase "settled science." It was a real hoot when someone pointed out with evidence that you were repeating Rush Limbaugh. Other times you reach conclusions that seem to be beyond the reach of most pundits (Alex Jones excepted perhaps) such as the "Biden Crime Family" honk.
And when your claims/beliefs are met with contrary evidence, you stop posting about the matter...only to recycle it a few months later. EG, that email discussing divvying about profits from a Chinese-related venture that Hunter Biden and associates were involved. You know, the email with something like "10% for the Big Guy?" in it. I pointed out to you MORE THAN ONCE that it was one email, written by a business associate of Hunter Biden...and the deal never went anywhere.
Most RPers posting here don't believe in Trump at all. I think most of them are at the least deeply skeptical about the integrity and worth of the GOP. These opinions are strongly different from yours. Just because one person feels strongly about a matter doesn't mean that he/she can convince others of the worth of those opinions or the importance of the matter.
If you don't provide evidence for your beliefs and don't respond to attempts at valid criticism, Kurt, you're going to be regarded as a crank. I get frustrated with R_P's posts about Ukraine because they seem blinkered, filtered through a lens that portrays the US as the primary cause of the war without much consideration for Russia's responsibilities. I don't think R_P responds to valid questions/challenges to those beliefs.
"If I challenged all the garbage posted from "your side", it would be the only thing that I would ever do here. "
I feel the same way about some of your wilder claims. The fact that you recycle stuff after it's been disputed or rebutted is maddening.
"Well so no one here has yet to mention the security (cocaine) breach which is the first and most important part of all of this. "
Shi* happens, Kurt! Some idiot brought coke to the WH. Do you blame the Biden WH staff or the government security personnel or...who? Maybe pro-Biden people here shrugged it off because they were willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. I think we all do that when thinking about politicians we like. Be honest now: were you upset when Trump held important discussions with the PM of Japan on a response to N. Korea when the two men were surrounded by civilians in a dining room at MAL?
As for the judge's opinion restricting the federal government from discussing matters with social media networks: I haven't read much about it. I doubt it will hold up to legal challenge. I don't think social media networks are reflexively hostile to and censoring of conservative opinions. IIRC the Twitter files were largely a bust as supposed evidence of left-leaning censorship.
Ordinarily you would be correct. Not in this case though.
Deliberately ignored or unaware due to media feeds. And what Biden loyalist would bring any of this up in the first place if no one else has ?
More conclusions based on silence.
From NOT seeing posts ( = silence/no evidence) you assume and reach conclusions about why your favorite stories (usually from your favorite sources) are not posted.
Maybe people don't post them because they know you will post them anyway.
Oh and classic concern trolling:
No concerns about the safety of Biden himself and those who work there.
"Who is to say what is "garbage" though? Who elected you to be the arbiter of what is or isn't garbage?"
Every individual has the right to decide what's garbage and what's valid. That's the hallmark of a critical/skeptical audience. That person wants others to prove your assertions or at least provide evidence. As I keep telling Kurt, if you back up your claims with some logic or evidence,
it's a lot harder for others to dismiss you out of hand or attack you personally. It's up to each person to determine their tolerance for seeing of inaccurate/false/unsupported/poorly reasoned statements. Too many "prove it" statements or hostile, ad hominem attacks discourage people from posting.
Too few challenges, however, lead to a forum filled with wacky conspiracy theories and extremist rants.
Why resort to personal attacks in the first place ? Don't have a supporting argument to use to disagree ?
Well you must admit that this is a pretty one sided place and anything that goes against the grain of the majority is almost always met with derision, regardless of fact.
If I challenged all the garbage posted from "your side", it would be the only thing that I would ever do here. There is only just me until recently with the return of Beaker. And with that the two of us don't agree on everything but we agree on much more than we don't.
But as I've said so many times, I pick my battles. So many times I bring up a point and the reply has nothing to do with what I initiated. Usually the reaction is "Squirrel !!"
Take my recent string of videos. No one here was even talking about the Cocaine found at the WH, and still are not saying much other than to try and make it into "weak sauce" instead of deal with the obvious ramifications. I just posted the vids (all picked out in advance), without comment, for whoever to draw their own conclusions, if any. Took the second one before there was any reaction. And then the first guess from the Cap'n was that I was referencing Joe. I had to laugh. Whooooosh ...
Well so no one here has yet to mention the security breach which is the first and most important part of all of this. It could have been Anthrax instead of blow. Just deflections and yawns. No concerns about the safety of Biden himself and those who work there. Just weal sauce and squirrels.
So who determines what is "garbage" and what isn't ? Funny, how timely. Another conspiracy is being proved to be true. Chew on this. Although a week old now, no one else has thought to bring up something so important regarding Biden.
Doughty order said the administration “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The order, which was to remain in effect pending further arguments in Doughty’s court, was hailed by conservatives as a victory for free speech and a blow to censorship. But critics said the order and accompanying reasons, covering more than 160 pages, were broad, unclear and could chill government efforts to fight misinformation on important topics.
160 pages doesn't sound vague to me. Paraphrasing ...the judge considers this to be an outrageous attack on the 1st Amendment. You likely strongly disagree with all of this based upon your history here. I agree with the judge. This is what you call garbage and I call important.
I see no reason to ever attack the person...learn to ignore it, or stick to attacking the ideas, as ruthless as you may, and not the person.
As someone else once said, some really good people have some really bad ideas.
There's plenty of "garbage" on the Interwebs, and yes, even here at RP. Who is to say what is "garbage" though? Who elected you to be the arbiter of what is or isn't garbage?
The wiser person just lets the nonsense go by, ignored. If the "garbage" is abusive or in violation of some rule, then perhaps an action to counter that is required - but it doesn't justify *you* responding to it personally. As much as you wish you had that control, it's not your playpen. Protect your blood pressure - let the "garbage" you have no actual interest in honestly engaging with flow on by. There are plenty of threads here that don't interest me. Doesn't mean they shouldn't exist - or their participants should be banned from posting.
Consider your (all, generally, not you specifically islander) attitude and whether it presents an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment to lurker newbies. This topic has been brought up many times before - and yet it still doesn't seem to sink in.
â-
In a recent interview with The Babylon Bee, Elon made a comment about arguing on Twitter â The system factors in your interactions, so if you argue with a particular account, the system will assume you like arguing and show you more content that will get you to interact that way. Link "The most entertaining outcome is the most likely." - Elon Musk
"Who is to say what is "garbage" though? Who elected you to be the arbiter of what is or isn't garbage?"
Every individual has the right to decide what's garbage and what's valid. That's the hallmark of a critical/skeptical audience. That person wants others to prove your assertions or at least provide evidence. As I keep telling Kurt, if you back up your claims with some logic or evidence, it's a lot harder for others to dismiss you out of hand or attack you personally.
It's up to each person to determine their tolerance for seeing of inaccurate/false/unsupported/poorly reasoned statements. Too many "prove it" statements or hostile, ad hominem attacks discourage people from posting. Too few challenges, however, lead to a forum filled with wacky conspiracy theories and extremist rants.
I think we all can express disagreement without hostility. I don't always succeed in being polite. I can be really harsh, too harsh sometimes. But I feel compelled to challenge people who post unsupported conspiracy notions or outright lies—"Trump won 2020!", "China deliberately created Covid", "Russia is perfectly justified in invading Ukraine because the West is threatening it."
It's possible that the increased divisions in American culture have made it harder for both sides to be civil towards the other, including on this forum. There may be lurkers/newbies put off by the anger/hostility expressed here. But it's also possible that people come to this forum to socialize more these days, to escape the crazy noise of American current events.
This is the challenge. Generally, the garbage isn't worth responding to. But silence appears as acquiescence, and some of that garbage really shouldn't be left out without a strong refutation. I don't consider it my job, and I won't 'police' it, but I also won't stand quietly by when it's festering.
There's plenty of "garbage" on the Interwebs, and yes, even here at RP. Who is to say what is "garbage" though? Who elected you to be the arbiter of what is or isn't garbage?
The wiser person just lets the nonsense go by, ignored. If the "garbage" is abusive or in violation of some rule, then perhaps an action to counter that is required - but it doesn't justify *you* responding to it personally. As much as you wish you had that control, it's not your playpen. Protect your blood pressure - let the "garbage" you have no actual interest in honestly engaging with flow on by. There are plenty of threads here that don't interest me. Doesn't mean they shouldn't exist - or their participants should be banned from posting.
Consider your (all, generally, not you specifically islander) attitude and whether it presents an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment to lurker newbies. This topic has been brought up many times before - and yet it still doesn't seem to sink in.
â-
In a recent interview with The Babylon Bee, Elon made a comment about arguing on Twitter â The system factors in your interactions, so if you argue with a particular account, the system will assume you like arguing and show you more content that will get you to interact that way. Link "The most entertaining outcome is the most likely." - Elon Musk
But silence appears as acquiescence, and some of that garbage really shouldn't be left out without a strong refutation.
Somewhere you wrote to me that just because I say so does not make it right or correct or something like that.
Again, I remind you that that is a two way street.
Again, whose the intolerant one here ? It's you're way or the highway, right ? You're the one with the final say so. Uh, huh.
. islander wrote:
You don't owe tolerance to the intolerant. You don't owe serious debate to the disingenuous. He may or may not be 'coming from a different place', but he's on the same road. Nonsense, alternate 'facts', conspiracy theories and other things meant to occupy and waste time are worthy of mocking and derision. The latest weak sauce is just that - the latest.
You're Ahab and I'm you're White Whale. We know how that one ends. Happens when you let people rent space in your head for free ...
You may have all you're toys and things but I pity you. There many legitimate ways to look at the same thing. Sometimes people see the same thing coming from different directions and a common ground is found, despite different POV's and other reference points. You're a glass half empty person, imo.
This is the challenge. Generally, the garbage isn't worth responding to. But silence appears as acquiescence, and some of that garbage really shouldn't be left out without a strong refutation. I don't consider it my job, and I won't 'police' it, but I also won't stand quietly by when it's festering.
