FakeNews

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,587
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Ok, I understand now. Lefties can’t tell when he’s joking. They think he’s always serious.
Well, they announced he was nominating Ratcliffe, then everyone pointed out that Ratcliffe was woefully unqualified, then they cancelled the nomination. So I guess they're just incompetent
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
You're wrong. You took two big Ls there. Also, I bet you respond to this post saying I'm wrong and you're right and then 700 million more, if I keep posting in response. Point made.
Control freak Jake wants the last word. You can have it but I have one question. What was the statement I made with regard to private roads that was “wrong”. Give me a single statement. I bet you’ll trot out a straw man I didn’t say. 90% of the progs arguing against me have no idea what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,189
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Control freak Jake wants the last word. You can have it but I have one question. What was the statement I made with regard to private roads that was “wrong”. Give me a single statement. I bet you’ll trot out a straw man I didn’t say. 90% of the progs arguing against me have no idea what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
699,999,999 to go!
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
Well, they announced he was nominating Ratcliffe, then everyone pointed out that Ratcliffe was woefully unqualified, then they cancelled the nomination. So I guess they're just incompetent
Or it was 29-D chess for him to now nominate Comrade Devin Nunes to the post and not have anyone want to object to back-to-back picks.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
Ok, I understand now. Lefties can’t tell when he’s joking. They think he’s always serious.
He's joking? Really? That's what you're going with?

Over the last 30 months, this incompetent administration has multiple picks pulled after being announced because of things that should have been found out during vetting (a lot of domestic violence for some reason). The same administration has multiple officials resign due to scandals that should have been found during vetting.

Trump: We use the media to do our vetting!

KGF: Oh Don, you're so hilarious. *swoon*.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
He's joking? Really? That's what you're going with?

Over the last 30 months, this incompetent administration has multiple picks pulled after being announced because of things that should have been found out during vetting (a lot of domestic violence for some reason). The same administration has multiple officials resign due to scandals that should have been found during vetting.

Trump: We use the media to do our vetting!

KGF: Oh Don, you're so hilarious. *swoon*.
Yes. It was a joke. Didn’t say it was a haha funny joke.

More of a joke...like you.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
8,219
Reaction score
182
Points
63
Control freak Jake wants the last word. You can have it but I have one question. What was the statement I made with regard to private roads that was “wrong”. Give me a single statement. I bet you’ll trot out a straw man I didn’t say. 90% of the progs arguing against me have no idea what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2- with all due respect - IMHO, No one - I mean no one - has ever "won" or "lost" an argument on Gopher hole.

Because every argument is the same: Poster #1 - ABC. Poster #2 - XYZ. Then they just keep repeating the same points over and over again. No one ever changes their mind. no one ever admits that they are re-evaluating their point of view. sooner or later, one or both resorts to insults and name-calling. Then one or both claims victory. That is every GH thread in a nutshell.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,189
Reaction score
31
Points
48
2- with all due respect - IMHO, No one - I mean no one - has ever "won" or "lost" an argument on Gopher hole.

Because every argument is the same: Poster #1 - ABC. Poster #2 - XYZ. Then they just keep repeating the same points over and over again. No one ever changes their mind. no one ever admits that they are re-evaluating their point of view. sooner or later, one or both resorts to insults and name-calling. Then one or both claims victory. That is every GH thread in a nutshell.
You're wrong, you idiot. ;)
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
2- with all due respect - IMHO, No one - I mean no one - has ever "won" or "lost" an argument on Gopher hole.

Because every argument is the same: Poster #1 - ABC. Poster #2 - XYZ. Then they just keep repeating the same points over and over again. No one ever changes their mind. no one ever admits that they are re-evaluating their point of view. sooner or later, one or both resorts to insults and name-calling. Then one or both claims victory. That is every GH thread in a nutshell.
Absolutely not true. On occasion people make a claim that is either proven true or untrue with evidence or outcomes. Granted, most arguments are won or lost in the eye of the beholder(s), or in the mind of the poster.

But take Stroker for example. He was sure AG Barr was going to have to resign or be fired in disgrace by Nov 1, 2019, so much so that he wagered me a 6 month self-suspension for which of us was wrong. He’ll will be taking the big L. With the exception of the suspension, not unusual for him.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
2- with all due respect - IMHO, No one - I mean no one - has ever "won" or "lost" an argument on Gopher hole.

Because every argument is the same: Poster #1 - ABC. Poster #2 - XYZ. Then they just keep repeating the same points over and over again. No one ever changes their mind. no one ever admits that they are re-evaluating their point of view. sooner or later, one or both resorts to insults and name-calling. Then one or both claims victory. That is every GH thread in a nutshell.
Not all arguments but a lot of them. No one will admit changing their point of view but it still happens sometimes. Pride gets in the way a lot of times, but people might privately realize and rethink things later.
There were a couple notable examples where math was involved with Jake and DPO where they were forced to admit they were wrong.
Overall tho you are right.

On this dumb argument, I could absolutely be wrong. It would be quite a coincidence but very possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
77
Points
48
Stocker has been taken to the woodshed dozens of times and resorts to cliches and insults. It's not outlasting him.

Several Ls none of which you can mention. probably because they are matters of opinion for the most part.
Deuce has a short memory. It's what allows him to come back strong the next day with another asinine take. Can't remember all the embarrassing temper tantrums he's thrown when his downright stupid argument has been blasted to bits and he's failed to change the argument altogether. His mistake is that everyone can see these pretzels forming.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,050
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Yes. It was a joke. Didn’t say it was a haha funny joke.

More of a joke...like you.
Oh, certainly. All of the hundreds of really, really stupid things Donnie says every day are all jokes. He's not a clown or a total idiot, as would seem all too obvious; nah, he's merely a joking genius.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Oh, certainly. All of the hundreds of really, really stupid things Donnie says every day are all jokes. He's not a clown or a total idiot, as would seem all too obvious; nah, he's merely a joking genius.
Actually, when my wife saw him say that line about vetting, she laughed. And she doesn’t like much about Trump other than his policies.

You lefties are sour people. It shows in your candidates too.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,050
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Actually, when my wife saw him say that line about vetting, she laughed. And she doesn’t like much about Trump other than his policies.

You lefties are sour people. It shows in your candidates too.
I laugh at him every day too, but nearly always because he's an idiotic fool and makes an ass of himself. He does try to be funny, but because he's such a major asswipe, it only comes off as funny/haha to those who like asswipes.

I'm curious, which "lefty" Presidential candidate do you suspect I support most?
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
I laugh at him every day too, but nearly always because he's an idiotic fool and makes an ass of himself. He does try to be funny, but because he's such a major asswipe, it only comes off as funny/haha to those who like asswipes.

I'm curious, which "lefty" Presidential candidate do you suspect I support most?
I’m sure it’s one of the alleged “moderates”. Unfortunately, the new Democrat Party moderates are left of Obama.

If I had to vote for a Dem, I’d probably go with Bennet, Bullock, or Hickenlooper, but I’d hope like heck there’s a GOP Senate majority.

Edit add: How could I forget Delaney? Probably go with him. Not that there’s a chance for any of them.
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,587
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Yes. It was a joke. Didn’t say it was a haha funny joke.

More of a joke...like you.
Well, they announced he was nominating Ratcliffe, then everyone pointed out that Ratcliffe was woefully unqualified, then they cancelled the nomination. So I guess they're just incompetent
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,050
Reaction score
207
Points
63
I’m sure it’s one of the alleged “moderates”. Unfortunately, the new Democrat Party moderates are left of Obama.

If I had to vote for a Dem, I’d probably go with Bennet, Bullock, or Hickenlooper, but I’d hope like heck there’s a GOP Senate majority.

Edit add: How could I forget Delaney? Probably go with him. Not that there’s a chance for any of them.
Correct. My choices would currently be from Klobuchar, Bullock, and Biden, none of whom are truly "left" of Obama. But call me a "lefty" for supporting moderate/centrist politics. Such a burn.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Correct. My choices would currently be from Klobuchar, Bullock, and Biden, none of whom are truly "left" of Obama. But call me a "lefty" for supporting moderate/centrist politics. Such a burn.
Biden has taken some very left positions on some issues, like free healthcare for illegals, and virtually all of the Dem candidates want a universal healthcare plan that will eventually take away the preferences of people to keep their private healthcare plan, some sooner than later. Moderate Dems complain a lot about the treatment of illegals and children at the border, but have offered no solutions that don’t involve an effectively open borders policy and humane fixes that don’t make the US a magnet for illegal immigration. Same goes for Klobachar, though she hasn’t had the tough questions b/c she’s polling so low to date.

And, most all Dems are taking lefty positions on climate change policies. Biden wants to unilaterally spend nearly 1/2 a trillion on something the US has only a 15% contribution to while China, India, and others do nothing except provide lip service. He wants to stop subsidies for natural gas and coal, and I’m sure will heavily subsidize ‘green’ energy sources, when the US has the greatest resources in the world for fossil fuels and which are the most cost efficient fuels. And, at least one lefty operative has admitted the climate issues are really about implementing socialist reform.

Healthcare, illegal immigration, and progressive climate change policies are huge issues in the 2020 election. Those are very left positions.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
Deuce has a short memory. It's what allows him to come back strong the next day with another asinine take. Can't remember all the embarrassing temper tantrums he's thrown when his downright stupid argument has been blasted to bits and he's failed to change the argument altogether. His mistake is that everyone can see these pretzels forming.
Pretzel. Typical deuce. Private roads. These are your go to arguments against me. No logic. No reason. You’re right because you say you are and everyone agrees. No need for debate. That’s why you’re on ignore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
77
Points
48
Pretzel. Typical deuce. Private roads. These are your go to arguments against me. No logic. No reason. You’re right because you say you are and everyone agrees. No need for debate. That’s why you’re on ignore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only mentioned pretzel....because it's a perfect way to describe how you post on the OTB when your argument has been shredded. The only reason you have is that dumpster website. Logic doesn't factor into your arguments because they start from a place of pure lunacy.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
Only mentioned pretzel....because it's a perfect way to describe how you post on the OTB when your argument has been shredded. The only reason you have is that dumpster website. Logic doesn't factor into your arguments because they start from a place of pure lunacy.
here's what pretzel means: you are unwilling or unable to view any issue from my perspective. You'd like to frame it your way. When I frame an issue my way, it's a pretzel.

You guys don't even know what the term you use in every argument even means. Talk about clueless. You can't even describe what you mean by pretzel, what a lightweight. "It describes how you post". What a mental midget. And on ignore.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
77
Points
48
here's what pretzel means: you are unwilling or unable to view any issue from my perspective. You'd like to frame it your way. When I frame an issue my way, it's a pretzel.

You guys don't even know what the term you use in every argument even means. Talk about clueless. You can't even describe what you mean by pretzel, what a lightweight. "It describes how you post". What a mental midget. And on ignore.
Deuce lashes out in a rage over a tactic that everyone knows he uses. Maybe he liked merry-go-round better? Either way....you go around and around in circles and end back up where you already trashed him once....but he's had enough time to reset the memory and start over fresh with a slightly different angle. LOL!

HA! And deuce blocked me again!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
But the left doesn’t control the news media and their narratives. :rolleyes:

The real question is how did the first headline ever make it out the door. Clearly an oversight.
Can you imagine the size of the rage boner Howie would have if Trump complained about a Fox headline and they changed it?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Shapiro on this and the hypocrisy of the left.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50317/shapiro-new-york-times-has-new-slogan-daily-wire

The New York Times Has A New Slogan

Joe Scarborough made the connection complete yesterday, when he suggested on his show that anybody who supports President Trump is by necessity supporting white supremacist terror attacks.

Scarborough: For those of you who are funding Donald Trump's re-election campaign, you may want to take note that because you keep writing checks to this president, it's on you. It really is, it's all on you because you are funding this white supremacist campaign, CEOs, you really are. Business people, millionaires, and billionaires, it is your money that is funding this white supremacy. Because you won't tell him to stop.

Who's not telling him to stop when he said all the bad stuff that he said in the past?

I’m pretty sure a lot of people were telling him to stop. And by the way, if you support Trump in his re-election bid because you don't trust Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, to run the country, this does not make you a white supremacist. The attempt to tie politics to this event is a deliberate attempt to elect a Democrat to the White House. That's what this is about and here's how you can tell.

So, today the media actually started to cover this thing the way they should cover it. So, The New York Times yesterday ran a ridiculous and bizarre headline. Their ridiculous and bizarre headline, which I pointed out yesterday, was something to the effect of, Donald Trump condemns racism, but says nothing about guns. Here's the exact headline; it was, "Trump Condemns White Supremacy, but Doesn't Propose Gun Laws After Shooting." And as I pointed out, that's not journalism. That is The New York Times saying what they wish he had said, not what he said. What he actually said was that white supremacy is evil. Wouldn't that be the headline? "Trump: White Supremacy Is Evil." A very easy headline to write. Trump condemns white supremacy; that's where the headline ends.

Okay. So, I pointed that out yesterday. Well, apparently the editors at The New York Times actually got the message. And so their headline on the front page of The New York Times today was "Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism." Trump urges unity versus racism; that is a factually true headline. Now, you may think that it's disingenuous. You may think that as Don Lemon does, that it rings hollow. But the actual headline, if you are a news person, is that Trump urges unity versus racism, and it's not a biased headline. That is a very straightforward headline.

The entire Left went insane. Beto O'Rourke came out and said it was disgusting that The New York Times had run that headline. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, as is her wont, accused The New York Times of white supremacism. So, I guess it was Nancy Pelosi three weeks ago, and now it's The New York Times pushing white supremacism, apparently. Nate Silver, who is at FiveThirtyEight — obviously is of the political Left — said, "Not sure Trump urges unity versus racism is how I would have framed the story." Then AOC says, "Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by — and often relies upon — the cowardice of mainstream institutions."

Weird. I remember that time that Trump called the New York Times fake news, and everybody was like, "Oh, my God, that right there is an attack on the First Amendment. It's an attack on the press." When AOC says that The New York Times is forwarding white supremacy, I guess that's not an attack on the press because it's AOC, and we all love AOC, right? I mean she is the wisest, most benevolent, most beautiful among us, the most brilliant, thus, when she rips into The New York Times as an institution of white supremacy filled with cowardice, not a problem at all.

So, what did The New York Times do? The New York Times switched its front page, not kidding, because of the blowback from the Left, because many on the Left were suggesting they were gonna cancel their subscriptions over the headline, the factually accurate headline. The New York Times reversed itself and pulled down that headline and put up a new headline. The headline was "Assailing Hate, but Not Guns." Now, that is not actually a factual headline. The president actually called for certain gun regulations, including red-flag regulations.

That is editorializing. "But not blank," is not a factual reportage decision; that is an editorializing decision. That's the kind of headline that I could write after every Barack Obama speech. "Barack Obama endorses X but not Y," Y being a thing I wanted him to endorse — that's editorializing.


So, The New York Times a paper that used to be vaunted — it used to be their slogan — their slogan used to be, "Without fear or favor." It was a statement made by the founder of The New York Times 100 years ago: "Without fear or favor."

Well, forget that. Now it's "Fear of the Left means that we will favor the Left." So they're going to switch the headline. Why? Because it would undercut the narrative that the Left is attempting to drive if Trump actually did urge unity versus racism.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Here’s MSNBC’s “Republican”.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50314/msnbcs-nicolle-wallace-falsely-claims-trump-ryan-saavedra

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace Falsely Claims Trump ‘Talking About Exterminating Latinos’

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace promoted dangerous rhetoric on Tuesday when she falsely claimed that President Donald Trump was "talking about exterminating Latinos."

Raul Reyes, who frequently appears on CNN, attacked the president for his rhetoric surrounding illegal immigrants, falsely suggesting that Trump called immigrants an "infestation."

The president used that word when he was discussing cities that were overrun with MS-13 gang members, whose motto is "kill, rape, control."


"When we have an 'infestation' of MS-13 GANGS in certain parts of our country, who do we send to get them out? ICE!" Trump tweeted. "They are tougher and smarter than these rough criminal elelments that bad immigration laws allow into our country. Dems do not appreciate the great job they do!"

"What do you do when, certainly, the last Republican president fought for, sought and it's not ideal but had 44% of Latino voters," Wallace said. "So politically powerful inside the last Republican administration. President Obama used the power of the presidency to try to pass comprehensive immigration reform, with the Latino community, Latino leaders, at the table."

"You now have a president, as you said, talking about exterminating Latinos," Wallace falsely claimed.

Wallace's remarks, which come at a time when many in the media claim to stand against inflammatory rhetoric, were widely condemned.

Host Jason Rantz tweeted: "You have to be a special kind of hack to make an outrageous comment like this. And you know what? That's exactly what Nicolle Wallace is."

NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck tweeted: "Perhaps Nicolle Wallace should watch her rhetoric. For all the talk she and her colleagues offer up about how the President's a dictator, using the word 'exterminate' takes matters to another level and is truly the kind of rhetoric that's unacceptable."

RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest tweeted: "While ⁦@realDonaldTrump calls for national unity, this is what is going on over at MSNBC. This is is completely unhinged, inflammatory, and patently ridiculous rhetoric."


She has since apologized. No doubt she had no choice to save what little credibility she has.
 
Top Bottom