Alex Jones found liable over Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy

#326
#326
NorthDallas40 said:
He isn’t necessarily leftist. He’s more blinded to irrationality by all things Orange. Think more of a McCain zealotry disciple.
Click to expand...
Giving this a like because it at least identifies that I’m not a leftist.

Ought to take it away for calling me irrational in the midst of this crybaby convention. 😂
 
Last edited:
#329
#329
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. I nailed you Homer and you know it 😈
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to be discussing that particular fantasy in a public forum?

I voted for McCain, and he’s probably the closest I’ve come to admiring a candidate for President, but I don’t have any special zeal or even a recollection of what policies of his that I liked over Obama.

There’s nothing irrational about my views re: Trump at this point. Prior to Covid 19 and January 6, it could be argued that my expectations for him were irrational, but he lived down to them.
 
#330
#330
RockyTop85 said:
Are you sure you want to be discussing that particular fantasy in a public forum?

I voted for McCain, and he’s probably the closest I’ve come to admiring a candidate for President, but I don’t have any special zeal or even a recollection of what policies of his that I liked over Obama.

There’s nothing irrational about my views re: Trump at this point. Prior to Covid 19 and January 6, it could be argued that my expectations for him were irrational, but he lived down to them.
Click to expand...
Lulz hey you were the one who went there not me.

Nobody is shocked you’re a McCain disciple. Absolutely nobody.

Nobody is shocked that you don’t view your Trump rage as irrational either.
 
#331
#331
NorthDallas40 said:
Lulz hey you were the one who went there not me.

Nobody is shocked you’re a McCain disciple. Absolutely nobody.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I said, try reading it again.


Nobody is shocked that you don’t view your Trump rage as irrational either.
Click to expand...

Because that is so clearly projection.

Again: “there was no basis for any investigation,” when you look at it objectively, is an untrue statement that was later accepted to be an opinion that was still based on incorrect facts and now it’s just people raging about the unfairness of dissimilar situations not getting the same treatment with a side of name calling for anybody who points out that the factual support is nonsense.

That’s irrational rage. Trumpism, at its core, is irrational rage. It’s people who live in the greatest country on earth and have it pretty damn good even relative to other people here, crying about how unfair the world is to them. Boo ****ing hoo. You want irrational go talk to those people.

I just looked at him and decided based on his willingness to pander to those people that he wasn’t fit. Hard to say that’s irrational when he actually tried to get Pence to overthrow the government and puts out statements supporting… what’s your word for it? Civil unrest?

My expectation that he would be stupid enough to get caught by the investigation was probably the most irrational thing I actually believed about him. On nearly every other count, he lived down to expectations.
 
#332
#332
RockyTop85 said:
That’s not what I said, try reading it again.




Because that is so clearly projection.

Again: “there was no basis for any investigation,” when you look at it objectively, is an untrue statement that was later accepted to be an opinion that was still based on incorrect facts and now it’s just people raging about the unfairness of dissimilar situations not getting the same treatment with a side of name calling for anybody who points out that the factual support is nonsense.

That’s irrational rage.

I just looked at him and decided he wasn’t fit. My expectation that he would be stupid enough to get caught by the investigation was probably the most irrational thing I actually believed about him. On nearly every other count, he lived down to expectations.
Click to expand...
It’s your fantasy you went there.

Correct there was no basis for investigation.

And as far as Bobby Mueller catching anybody actually related to his charter is there anything you can point to other than the kid and European lawyer that got process crime parking tickets? We keep asking for that and you keep your circular reference going pointing to the process crime parking tickets as justification for why that politically motivated broad ass scope witch hunt was done that landed nothing.
 
#333
#333
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s your fantasy you went there.

Correct there was no basis for investigation.

And as far as Bobby Mueller catching anybody actually related to his charter is there anything you can point to other than the kid and European lawyer that got process crime parking tickets? We keep asking for that and you keep your circular reference going pointing to the process crime parking tickets as justification for why that broad ass scope witch hunt was done that landed nothing.
Click to expand...
No, I never said I was a McCain “disciple” I never even met the man and only vaguely remember his campaign, that’s something you made up and are now stating as fact. Almost like you have a propensity to do that…

The results of the investigation are irrelevant to the sufficiency of the predicate… I’m not sure how many times I have to say that, but until somebody accepts it or adequately refutes it, I’m not moving past that point. And I’m certainly not getting into the results because they’re not relevant to the predicate. If you want to have a discussion about the basis for the investigation, it needs to be about what was known before the investigation was started. That’s what a predicate is.

Irrational statement #1: “there was no basis for the investigation.”
Irrational statement #2: discusses the results of the investigation to attack the predicate.
 
#334
#334
RockyTop85 said:
No, I never said I was a McCain “disciple” I never even met the man and only vaguely remember his campaign, that’s something you made up and are now stating as fact. Almost like you have a propensity to do that…

The results of the investigation are irrelevant to the sufficiency of the predicate… I’m not sure how many times I have to say that, but until somebody accepts it or adequately refutes it, I’m not moving past that point. And I’m certainly not getting into the results because they’re not relevant to the predicate. If you want to have a discussion about the basis for the investigation, it needs to be about what was known before the investigation was started. That’s what a predicate is.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to say the quiet part out loud we all know it, your brain works like old ass McCain’s

No there was never any actual basis for the political witch hunt. Anybody with any common sense could see that. And the results prove it.

Your turn.
 
#335
#335
NorthDallas40 said:
You don’t need to say the quiet part out loud we all know it.

No there was never any actual basis for the political witch hunt. Anybody with any common sense could see that. And the results prove it.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but ok.

I’m still good with “the results don’t have any bearing on the sufficiency or the predicate,” until I’ve seen assurances that we’re done talking about the results or a satisfactory explanation has been given for how decisions that were made at the outset should have been influenced by things that weren’t known at that time.

Irrational statement #1: “there was no basis for the investigation.”
Irrational statement #2: discusses the results of the investigation to attack the predicate.
Irrational statement #3-5: there was never any actual basis for the political witch hunt. Anybody with any common sense could see that. And the results prove it.
 
#336
#336
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but ok.

I’m still good with “the results don’t have any bearing on the sufficiency or the predicate,” until I’ve seen assurances that we’re done talking about the results or a satisfactory explanation has been given for how decisions that were made at the outset should have been influenced by things that weren’t known at that time.

Irrational statement #1: “there was no basis for the investigation.”
Irrational statement #2: discusses the results of the investigation to attack the predicate.
Irrational statement #3-5: there was never any actual basis for the political witch hunt. Anybody with any common sense could see that. And the results prove it.
Click to expand...

What was the Predicate? Seriously. The only thing I know is this started with the stupidity of the DNC hack and somehow led to Russia having it, hence Trump met with Russian agents to get it and off to the races.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#337
#337
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but ok.

I’m still good with “the results don’t have any bearing on the sufficiency or the predicate,” until I’ve seen assurances that we’re done talking about the results or a satisfactory explanation has been given for how decisions that were made at the outset should have been influenced by things that weren’t known at that time.

Irrational statement #1: “there was no basis for the investigation.”
Irrational statement #2: discusses the results of the investigation to attack the predicate.
Irrational statement #3-5: there was never any actual basis for the political witch hunt. Anybody with any common sense could see that. And the results prove it.
Click to expand...
Nobody is buying what you or Bobby Mueller is selling. Absolutely nobody. And there was a whole majority in Congress in the House more than happy to write those articles of impeachment yet they did no such thing.

Every reasonable conclusion says there is nothing actionable. And nobody will touch it. But sure you’re smarter than everyone else.

Just like McCain was when he was shopping the dossier that got the ball rolling to the witch hunt 😈
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#338
#338
Orangeburst said:
What was the Predicate? Seriously. The only thing I know is this started with the stupidity of the DNC hack and somehow led to Russia having it, hence Trump met with Russian agents to get it and off to the races.
Click to expand...
If it was a serious question, you would have looked it up before deciding it was a hoax and arguing with people who say that it wasn’t.

This is ultimately the problem with the whole “i concede absolutely no facts and you must disprove my ignorance to my own satisfaction” tactic that you resorted to, earlier:
A. You lose credibility by questioning established facts because it’s apparent you don’t know what you’re talking about and
B. Nobody has any incentive to engage with you because you’ve proven that your opinion is a matter of emotion rather than reasoning and you’ll resort to bad faith tactics to avoid giving any ground.

Nothing personal, you’re like the 10th person whose pulled that crap, but I have really no incentive to engage with this because it will just lead to more remedial argument:
You’ll just argue with me about the validity of each of the 6 remaining events I can remember off the top of my head; and
I’ll have to go to the effort of sourcing them, at which point you’ll probably just revert to arguing about the results or making low effort posts that add nothing and concede nothing.

Alternatively, if I don’t provide sources, it’s basically the same end result as what I’m doing now: you claim I don’t know of any basis, even though it’s published in dozens of print media articles, a 400 page report of a special counsel’s investigation, and a couple hundred more pages from the senate intelligence committee.

So all I stand to gain is demonstrating superior personal knowledge of publicly available documents. Which I’ve already done to my own satisfaction dozens of times over the past few years, and which I could never do to your satisfaction.

It’s all been done before and I’d be stupid to expect anything new when you’ve already shown that you’re just irrationally wed to “Orange Man Good!”

So making childish fart jokes is the highest entertainment value.
 
#339
#339
RockyTop85 said:
If it was a serious question, you would have looked it up before deciding it was a hoax and arguing with people who say that it wasn’t.

This is ultimately the problem with the whole “i concede absolutely no facts and you must disprove my ignorance to my own satisfaction” tactic that you resorted to, earlier:
A. You lose credibility by questioning established facts because it’s apparent you don’t know what you’re talking about and
B. Nobody has any incentive to engage with you because you’ve proven that your opinion is a matter of emotion rather than reasoning and you’ll resort to bad faith tactics to avoid giving any ground.

Nothing personal, you’re like the 10th person whose pulled that crap, but I have really no incentive to engage with this because it will just lead to more remedial argument:
You’ll just argue with me about the validity of each of the 6 remaining events I can remember off the top of my head; and
I’ll have to go to the effort of sourcing them, at which point you’ll probably just revert to arguing about the results or making low effort posts that add nothing and concede nothing.

Alternatively, if I don’t provide sources, it’s basically the same end result as what I’m doing now: you claim I don’t know of any basis, even though it’s published in dozens of print media articles, a 400 page report of a special counsel’s investigation, and a couple hundred more pages from the senate intelligence committee.

So all I stand to gain is demonstrating superior personal knowledge of publicly available documents. Which I’ve already done to my own satisfaction dozens of times over the past few years, and which I could never do to your satisfaction.

So making childish fart jokes is the highest entertainment value.
Click to expand...

Dang man. This is not some court procession. I could point to much hypocrisy of this post, but will refrain.
Not that you care, but I think you are intelligent. We just see things differently from a macro view.
 
#340
#340
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t think it’s a direct threat against Trump. I think it’s classless as hell. I’d say it’s similar to the Jones situation. Just more douche baggery.
Click to expand...

What about when Madonna talked about blowing up the White House? Or Johnny Depo talking about assasinating Trump?
 
#342
#342
RockyTop85 said:
Are you sure you want to be discussing that particular fantasy in a public forum?

I voted for McCain, and he’s probably the closest I’ve come to admiring a candidate for President, but I don’t have any special zeal or even a recollection of what policies of his that I liked over Obama.

There’s nothing irrational about my views re: Trump at this point. Prior to Covid 19 and January 6, it could be argued that my expectations for him were irrational, but he lived down to them.
Click to expand...
You admired McCain? He was corrupt as hell and a typical politician
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, davethevol and hog88
#346
#346
USAFgolferVol said:
Have you read the Mueller report? The rationalization that " all politicians are the same" is BS. There are different levels of corruptness. Plus, some people have class and some don't
Click to expand...
I’ve read it. It read like a NYT Op Ed piece.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top