Pudendum wrote:If you are vaguely accusing someone of being dishonest, why not outline where they were dishonest?
1. Because no one has any reason to think that someone who is fundamentally dishonest is going to admit to any wrongdoing, as doing so runs contrary to their being fundamentally dishonest
2. He wasn't vague whatsoever when he actually accused you of being fundamentally dishonest, and what you're quoting is more a comment directed at folks such as myself and Spearthrower than it is at you, someone he's already regarded as too fundamentally dishonest to have any meaningful engagement with.
I think he is just unable to acknowledge any evidence which sheds a positive light on Trump. It isn't his fault. There is a lot of that going around.
I just find this bit with Spearthrower so bizarre; I do honestly think you believe the things you're suggesting, but this is all very clearly in error, and it's very clear even in this thread that the regular forum users simply do not have this impression of Spearthrower.
On the contrary, Spearthrower is a regular contributor to discussion, whom we've all disagreed with on one thing or another, and have all found to possess a degree of reason sufficient to be convincing and, more relevant to this point, a degree of honesty sufficient to concede when he's been shown to have been in error.
You likely wouldn't know this, of course, seeing as your entire engagement with this forum has been with this single thread (since I've been a member, at least), and from what I hear, one other thread which you made in the past where you did manage to cement your reputation with the regulars of this forum.
Seriously, all you'd have to do is click on some other thread to find evidence of this. So why continue on with this? You're not gonna get him to concede anything or apologize to you at this rate, and you're most certainly not going to convince the membership of this forum. They're free to correct me on this as they see fit, but as far as I can tell, they simply see this as Spearthrower treating you with the degree of respect you've managed to earn for yourself.
As to the Dems controlling the house, senate and executive, it appears I was wrong.
Hey, we're all wrong about something, sometimes. No need to stress about it.
Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.
Right, so now we can take the Jan 6th committee seriously, right? Because actual indictments occurred as a result of that investigation, right? The criteria you yourself previously gave, right? Or are we gonna just shrug that off and say that nothing about this was serious as long as Trump isn't behind bars?
Do you think we'll still be arguing about this if they put out a warrant for Trump's arrest tomorrow? I think we will, to be honest; I think the criteria will change once again, with claims that there's no evidence and that this is all just the Dems being scheming liars or something. When will we get to the point where you'll actually take this as seriously as 2000 Mules?
Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...
Mark Mazza of Indiana has been charged with carrying a loaded firearm to the Capitol on January 6th. Prosecutors have pieced together evidence suggesting that Oath Keepers had a stockpile of weapons at a nearby hotel in Arlington. You're welcome to perform a Google search yourself before deciding to make these comments, it would certainly save me time, especially if you bother reading some of the stuff you'd find.
DeSouza's criminal history
There you go, we found our reason why any sane person would disregard this film. Crack open the beers, folks, time to celebrate a job well done.
Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)
If you can actually explain the substance of this critique as well as your reason for disregarding it, I will be shocked, genuinely.
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.