One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Texas Governor Signs Sweeping New Law Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Jun 15, 2019 01:45:42   #
JoyV
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
In red is my pointing out what trump said that I in no way implied was illegal, in blue is my example that would be illegal but you and many other fools on OPP would consider legal.

As you choose to engage in dishonest discussion, I exercise my right to ignore you. Now should you choose to engage in HONEST discussion in the future, please do let me know, until then, we have nothing to discuss. Reply to my posts/post new messages to me all you like, just don't anticipate a response until you change your ways. Engaging in dishonest discourse is the tool that those without a valid argument choose to use in order to try to make the other look foolish. It only works on the weak minded with little to no actual reading comprehension. If it works with you and your friends, what do you think that says about you and those you befriend?
In color=red red /color is my pointing out what ... (show quote)


Talk about dishonest. You wrote my response to a different assertion and did NOT write my response to the Trump quote you attempted to use to prove his illegality.

On Jun 12, 2019 21:53:16, you wrote a post including,
"Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.". He was right, he could openly break the law and he won't lose his supporters. If he were to set out to prove what he said on the campaign trail and actually pick a random target in the middle of 5th Ave., that would be legal because he did it openly?"

My response to those comments was, "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!"

You claimed my response to the above comment was, "It shouldn't surprise me that you make assertions which when challenged you first redirect by saying you never made such assertions" In actuality that response was to,
Jun 13, 2019 22:08:24 "I see that you looked at the Mueller report with the same "ignore the facts" glasses that others here have read it with. Great job toeing that party line.

As for "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!". I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did. I really wonder about your reading comprehension. As for your question, Since you haven't the reading comprehension to properly read the report, I don't suppose answering this question will be worth my effort.

As for "There are others who HAVE seen Trump's generosity.", I haven't found any evidence on a credible site and it seems way out of character for him so pardon me if I choose not to believe that claim without actual evidence from a reliable source. the closest I thought I might have been coming to evidence of his benevolence was https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/9/29/a-quick-look-at-donald-trumps-philanthropy.html, but I refuse to sign up or donate or whatever the popup box was requiring just to read an article. It isn't a site that I expect to be visiting that frequently."

Going back to your writing, "I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did." You are correct that you didn't use the word 'crime'. You used the words, 'questionable legality' which is why I asked what was it he did which was illegal. Since you followed that with an example of Trump's statement about being able to get away with a crime, a reasonable person would assume when making an assertion followed by an example, that the example backed up the assertion. If I was wrong about making the assumption you followed typical writing practices of using examples to back up your assertions; then apologize. So what WAS your example trying to back up?


You also claimed I asserted, "As for your assertion that accepting subsidies in exchange for creating jobs, please provide the the facts that back your assertion."

That is NOT what I asserted. My assertion was that Obama created jobs but Trump instead created the environment for business to flourish instead of creating jobs. {Now in case you don't understand what that means; the businesses which expanded, returned production to our shores, or newly started; would all create jobs.} One way Obama created jobs was by literally creating jobs whose employees got paid directly through government checks funded 100% by taxpayers money. Another was by subsidizing businesses in the stated goals being those businesses would use the funding to hire more employees. There was no requirement the businesses had to hire more employees. And another type of subsidy he employed was tax subsidies.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-uses-subsidies-to-outsource-american-jobs-to-china

But my assertion was a simplistic one looking at a single factor. This article gives a broader understanding of some of the factors going into Obama's claim regarding job creation, but does not cover the subsidies. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/12/the_truth_about_obamas_job_record_125568.html

Now as to which Bush, yes there were two. But most people would realize that when stringing three presidents policies together in a series [Clinton, Bush, and Obama] AND referring to policies which were initiated or carried out under the GW Bush administration and NOT under the GHW Bush administration; that I would mean the Bush who came between Clinton and Obama. But to make it plain, I was referring to George Walker Bush, NOT George Herbert Walker Bush.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 02:35:32   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
JoyV wrote:
Talk about dishonest. You wrote my response to a different assertion and did NOT write my response to the Trump quote you attempted to use to prove his illegality.

On Jun 12, 2019 21:53:16, you wrote a post including,
"Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.". He was right, he could openly break the law and he won't lose his supporters. If he were to set out to prove what he said on the campaign trail and actually pick a random target in the middle of 5th Ave., that would be legal because he did it openly?"

My response to those comments was, "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!"

You claimed my response to the above comment was, "It shouldn't surprise me that you make assertions which when challenged you first redirect by saying you never made such assertions" In actuality that response was to,
Jun 13, 2019 22:08:24 "I see that you looked at the Mueller report with the same "ignore the facts" glasses that others here have read it with. Great job toeing that party line.

As for "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!". I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did. I really wonder about your reading comprehension. As for your question, Since you haven't the reading comprehension to properly read the report, I don't suppose answering this question will be worth my effort.

As for "There are others who HAVE seen Trump's generosity.", I haven't found any evidence on a credible site and it seems way out of character for him so pardon me if I choose not to believe that claim without actual evidence from a reliable source. the closest I thought I might have been coming to evidence of his benevolence was https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/9/29/a-quick-look-at-donald-trumps-philanthropy.html, but I refuse to sign up or donate or whatever the popup box was requiring just to read an article. It isn't a site that I expect to be visiting that frequently."

Going back to your writing, "I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did." You are correct that you didn't use the word 'crime'. You used the words, 'questionable legality' which is why I asked what was it he did which was illegal. Since you followed that with an example of Trump's statement about being able to get away with a crime, a reasonable person would assume when making an assertion followed by an example, that the example backed up the assertion. If I was wrong about making the assumption you followed typical writing practices of using examples to back up your assertions; then apologize. So what WAS your example trying to back up?


You also claimed I asserted, "As for your assertion that accepting subsidies in exchange for creating jobs, please provide the the facts that back your assertion."

That is NOT what I asserted. My assertion was that Obama created jobs but Trump instead created the environment for business to flourish instead of creating jobs. {Now in case you don't understand what that means; the businesses which expanded, returned production to our shores, or newly started; would all create jobs.} One way Obama created jobs was by literally creating jobs whose employees got paid directly through government checks funded 100% by taxpayers money. Another was by subsidizing businesses in the stated goals being those businesses would use the funding to hire more employees. There was no requirement the businesses had to hire more employees. And another type of subsidy he employed was tax subsidies.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-uses-subsidies-to-outsource-american-jobs-to-china

But my assertion was a simplistic one looking at a single factor. This article gives a broader understanding of some of the factors going into Obama's claim regarding job creation, but does not cover the subsidies. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/12/the_truth_about_obamas_job_record_125568.html

Now as to which Bush, yes there were two. But most people would realize that when stringing three presidents policies together in a series [Clinton, Bush, and Obama] AND referring to policies which were initiated or carried out under the GW Bush administration and NOT under the GHW Bush administration; that I would mean the Bush who came between Clinton and Obama. But to make it plain, I was referring to George Walker Bush, NOT George Herbert Walker Bush.
Talk about dishonest. You wrote my response to a ... (show quote)




As for your statement:

JoyV wrote:
Going back to your writing, "I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did." You are correct that you didn't use the word 'crime'. You used the words, 'questionable legality' which is why I asked what was it he did which was illegal. Since you followed that with an example of Trump's statement about being able to get away with a crime, a reasonable person would assume when making an assertion followed by an example, that the example backed up the assertion. If I was wrong about making the assumption you followed typical writing practices of using examples to back up your assertions; then apologize. So what WAS your example trying to back up?
Going back to your writing, "I never once sug... (show quote)


My reply of:

I wrote:
Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant...


That statement DOES NOT imply that I am listing off any crimes he has committed, only a fool would misinterpret that what was to follow would be a listing of "Trump's crimes", are you claiming to be a fool? If not then you have to admit to being dishonest, end of story. There was no implied listing of his crimes to come in that statement yet you dishonestly claim that I lied, very rich coming from the likes of you. If I were to have intended to continue with a "listing of Trump's crimes, I would have followed that statement with something to the effect of "such as". Since I did no such thing, you DID take my comment out of context and it WAS deliberate, that or you are just a fool with poor reading comprehension..





Reply
Jun 15, 2019 03:43:23   #
JoyV
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
That statement DOES NOT imply that I am listing off any crimes he has committed, only a fool would misinterpret that what was to follow would be a listing of "Trump's crimes", are you claiming to be a fool? If not then you have to admit to being dishonest, end of story. There was no implied listing of his crimes to come in that statement yet you dishonestly claim that I lied, very rich coming from the likes of you. If I were to have intended to continue with a "listing of Trump's crimes, I would have followed that statement with something to the effect of "such as". Since I did no such thing, you DID take my comment out of context and it WAS deliberate, that or you are just a fool with poor reading comprehension..
That statement DOES NOT imply that I am listing of... (show quote)


Of course you can ignore me. After your responses I would expect no better. Especially your responses regarding the Mueller report which you assert I am misreading or not comprehending when I say there were no crimes mentioned. You still have posted no one single quote from the report regarding any of Trump's crimes. You also scoffed at my mention of Trump's generosity. Yet when I post numerous examples you are silent on the subject.

You are correct that there is no point continuing. You give unsubstantiated opinions couched as facts and I provide evidence for my assertions. Yet you write as if your opinions are superior knowledge and needs NO evidence or even a smidgen of documentation. In the world I live in when you make unsubstantiated assertions and are challenged to back them up, you provide substantiation. But perhaps I expected too much. I'm sorry if I caused you stress by not accepting whole cloth anything you assert as the perfect truth but instead challenged you to back up your assertions.

Reply
 
 
Jun 15, 2019 12:26:56   #
debeda
 
JoyV wrote:
Of course you can ignore me. After your responses I would expect no better. Especially your responses regarding the Mueller report which you assert I am misreading or not comprehending when I say there were no crimes mentioned. You still have posted no one single quote from the report regarding any of Trump's crimes. You also scoffed at my mention of Trump's generosity. Yet when I post numerous examples you are silent on the subject.

You are correct that there is no point continuing. You give unsubstantiated opinions couched as facts and I provide evidence for my assertions. Yet you write as if your opinions are superior knowledge and needs NO evidence or even a smidgen of documentation. In the world I live in when you make unsubstantiated assertions and are challenged to back them up, you provide substantiation. But perhaps I expected too much. I'm sorry if I caused you stress by not accepting whole cloth anything you assert as the perfect truth but instead challenged you to back up your assertions.
Of course you can ignore me. After your responses... (show quote)


Joy, you made a valiant effort. But with lefties when you set them straight they pretend that you don't understand. they don't understand, or the call you names. In most cases theres no point talking to them. Tho I'll admit I get caught up sometimes. ANYHOW. thanks for this series of posts, very informative

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 18:49:50   #
JoyV
 
debeda wrote:
Joy, you made a valiant effort. But with lefties when you set them straight they pretend that you don't understand. they don't understand, or the call you names. In most cases theres no point talking to them. Tho I'll admit I get caught up sometimes. ANYHOW. thanks for this series of posts, very informative
Joy, you made a valiant effort. But with lefties w... (show quote)


You're welcome. Luckily I don't get frustrated by such antics because once someone starts such childish rants I don't have even mediocre expectations them.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 19:31:09   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
debeda wrote:
Joy, you made a valiant effort. But with lefties when you set them straight they pretend that you don't understand. they don't understand, or the call you names. In most cases theres no point talking to them. Tho I'll admit I get caught up sometimes. ANYHOW. thanks for this series of posts, very informative
Joy, you made a valiant effort. But with lefties w... (show quote)


Yes, a very valiant effort at disinformation. No shame in that one's game as they deliberately take words out of context. Perhaps JoyV will be Trump's pick to replace Sanders. She has all the same qualifications as Sanders, the ability to lie with no shame.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 21:28:09   #
JoyV
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Yes, a very valiant effort at disinformation. No shame in that one's game as they deliberately take words out of context. Perhaps JoyV will be Trump's pick to replace Sanders. She has all the same qualifications as Sanders, the ability to lie with no shame.


It is one thing to say you think I am wrong, or even that my points are stupid. But when you call me a liar you better be able to prove what I lied about!!!!!!

Reply
 
 
Jun 15, 2019 22:28:40   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
JoyV wrote:
It is one thing to say you think I am wrong, or even that my points are stupid. But when you call me a liar you better be able to prove what I lied about!!!!!!


Already did. Did you not deliberately take my words out of context? That is a lie that you tried to pass off. Each time you deny it, it is only another lie stacked on top of those you have told already. How many lies do you intend to stack? Let me make it simple on you and either you are the liar I am claiming you to be or so limited in intellect that you can't comprehend what you "read".

I wrote:
Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions.


Did that sentence end with a lead up to a "list" of "crimes"? Perhaps this next one will if that one didn't.

I wrote:
Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant.


What was the leading phrase in this one that suggests a "list" is coming?


What? Neither one mentions an impending "list"? Then your assertion that because I said "I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime." meant that I was lying, was itself a lie as any attempt to take another's words out of context IS itself a lie, that or your reading comprehension leaves MUCH to be desired. Let me once again try to get the time line of statements through that thick skull of yours, even though I am certain you know the time line and are only feigning the ignorance, which would indeed make you dishonest.

I wrote:
Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."...
b color=blue Yes, on several occasions Trump has... (show quote)


To which you replied:

JoyV wrote:
...So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!...


That was the part pertinent to the portion of my comment that preceded it. To which I replied:

I wrote:
...I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did...


That was the part relevant to the time line of your lies. To which you replied:

JoyV wrote:
It shouldn't surprise me that you make assertions which when challenged you first redirect by saying you never made such assertions...




Please feel free to point out in either the blue or the purple statement where I implied that I was readying a list of Trump's "crime(s)". When you fail to do so, which will it be, that you admit to a VERY stupid mistake, or that you deliberately took my comments out of context? A fool or dishonest? I only used the necessary portions that relate to the specific timeline in order to make it easier to comprehend just in case it turns out to be a simple case of "a VERY stupid mistake" on your part. Wouldn't want you taxing your brain too hard if the fault is your intellect.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 07:38:41   #
Rose42
 
JoyV wrote:
It is one thing to say you think I am wrong, or even that my points are stupid. But when you call me a liar you better be able to prove what I lied about!!!!!!


Pay him no mind. He often goes off the deep end if people don’t agree with him.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 13:44:24   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Rose42 wrote:
Pay him no mind. He often goes off the deep end if people don’t agree with him.


It isn't about not agreeing, but I couldn't expect you to understand, you do not seem to have the aversion I have to lies and deceit. By what I have seen from you, you tend to favor lies and deception.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 19:16:15   #
Rose42
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
It isn't about not agreeing, but I couldn't expect you to understand, you do not seem to have the aversion I have to lies and deceit. By what I have seen from you, you tend to favor lies and deception.


I,I,I,I - A more appropriate moniker for you is Narcissism_Matters

Any common sense you may have is often noticeably absent.

Reply
 
 
Jun 16, 2019 19:26:50   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Rose42 wrote:
I,I,I,I - A more appropriate moniker for you is Narcissism_Matters

Any common sense you may have is often noticeably absent.


You miscounted the "I"'s there is only 3, but there are 4 "you"'s though. Maybe it was perspective, you figured out (likely with help) that the "you"'s referred to you, yourself so counted them as "I"'s. That or you lost count even though that would be hard to do for someone with intelligence as there were so few.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 19:52:12   #
JoyV
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Please feel free to point out in either the blue or the purple statement where I implied that I was readying a list of Trump's "crime(s)". When you fail to do so, which will it be, that you admit to a VERY stupid mistake, or that you deliberately took my comments out of context? A fool or dishonest? I only used the necessary portions that relate to the specific timeline in order to make it easier to comprehend just in case it turns out to be a simple case of "a VERY stupid mistake" on your part. Wouldn't want you taxing your brain too hard if the fault is your intellect.
Please feel free to point out in either the blue o... (show quote)


I never said you claimed you were going to make a list of crimes. It is I who asked for such a list!!!!! And while you say I need reading comprehension, it appears you need writing comprehension as well as reading comprehension.

As you admit, you wrote: "Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions." There are two assertions there. 1) Trump has done things of questionable legality, and 2) Trump has attempted to hide corrupt actions. So LIST his legally questionable actions and his corrupt actions. Then you follow with, "Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant." If the action you are referring to, characterized by whether in the open or behind closed doors, is NOT an illegal action; then you need to learn how to write. The two sentences only go together if they are related to criminal actions. If you were changing the topic, you should have given a clue that you were. You followed with an example. The example was his saying he could get away with murder. So what was the example suppose to be highlighting if not you preceding sentences about Trump crimes?

Note that though you keep repeating that you never said you would provide a list of crimes, such as "What was the leading phrase in this one that suggests a "list" is coming?" and "What? Neither one mentions an impending "list"?"; you never quoted anything from me stating you promised list of crimes. You are trying to deflect NOT providing what I have asked by falsely claiming I am lying about you saying you would provide a list. READ and COMPREHEND that I never stated you made such a claim that you would provide a list of crimes, but rather ask you TO provide such a list!!!!! And you might bone up a bit on simple high school level writing.

I asked you to show where I lied. Your post did NOT show any lie from me. You only continue to assert I am lying.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 20:09:30   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
JoyV wrote:
I never said you claimed you were going to make a list of crimes. It is I who asked for such a list!!!!! And while you say I need reading comprehension, it appears you need writing comprehension as well as reading comprehension.

As you admit, you wrote: "Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions." There are two assertions there. 1) Trump has done things of questionable legality, and 2) Trump has attempted to hide corrupt actions. So LIST his legally questionable actions and his corrupt actions. Then you follow with, "Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant." If the action you are referring to, characterized by whether in the open or behind closed doors, is NOT an illegal action; then you need to learn how to write. The two sentences only go together if they are related to criminal actions. If you were changing the topic, you should have given a clue that you were. You followed with an example. The example was his saying he could get away with murder. So what was the example suppose to be highlighting if not you preceding sentences about Trump crimes?

Note that though you keep repeating that you never said you would provide a list of crimes, such as "What was the leading phrase in this one that suggests a "list" is coming?" and "What? Neither one mentions an impending "list"?"; you never quoted anything from me stating you promised list of crimes. You are trying to deflect NOT providing what I have asked by falsely claiming I am lying about you saying you would provide a list. READ and COMPREHEND that I never stated you made such a claim that you would provide a list of crimes, but rather ask you TO provide such a list!!!!! And you might bone up a bit on simple high school level writing.

I asked you to show where I lied. Your post did NOT show any lie from me. You only continue to assert I am lying.
I never said you claimed you were going to make a ... (show quote)


Contrary to you own thinking, taking someone's words out of context IS a form of deception, hence lying, try looking deception and lying up, they are virtually synonymous with one another. Since you DID take my words out of context, you DID lie. You try to appear intelligent, yet you don't know this? More likely you do but as you have no aversion to lying...

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 20:21:49   #
Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Contrary to you own thinking, taking someone's words out of context IS a form of deception, hence lying, try looking deception and lying up, they are virtually synonymous with one another. Since you DID take my words out of context, you DID lie. You try to appear intelligent, yet you don't know this? More likely you do but as you have no aversion to lying...


Since You enjoy pickin on and harassing women, it proves to me and everyone else that you are nothin more than a little antifa terrorist coward...a little billy ayers wannabe

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.