Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie B said:
Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.
Click to expand...

If you don't like it ignore it. If we have to put up with him, you have to put up with us putting up with him. It works both ways.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.
Click to expand...
This ^
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with you. Adjustments have been made. It is good to not just be talking to an echo chamber of people who agree with you but at the same time that only works if the alternate content has any content.
 
a_unique_person said:
I have to agree with you. Adjustments have been made. It is good to not just be talking to an echo chamber of people who agree with you but at the same time that only works if the alternate content has any content.
Click to expand...

cool story

by the way?

prevaricator: is a noun that means a person who speaks falsely; liar.

a/k/a Seth Abramson
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.
Click to expand...

Is it me? People say that about me a lot.
 
Belz... said:
Can you demonstrate that he lied or even that he was just wrong? So far we've only got your say-so.
Click to expand...

Well this prediction that Cohen would flip was a complete misunderstanding. We all know that Cohen would take a bullet for Trump:

REASON #3: COHEN IS FLIPPING. By preemptively burning Cohen—making up a lie about the McDougal matter which had Cohen suggesting a payment in cash—Team Trump has absolutely ensured what previously was just very likely: Cohen will flip on Trump. And he has *many* stories to tell.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm, now how could we falsify a statement that Abramson did not report Whittaker's words.

Tis a mystery...

/Now that is some good content.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmmm, now how could we falsify a statement that Abramson did not report Whittaker's words.
Click to expand...

And you could make your initial point clear by telling us how that makes Abramson a liar and how that invalidates his argument. You're the one who made that argument, remember?

No, of course you don't. You don't actually make arguments. You just nay-say whatever you think the other "side" says.
 
How does Abramson lying that Whittaker called the investigation legitimate make Seth a liar?

Tis yet another mystery
 
The Big Dog said:
Thanks a super bunch, but no need to fix my posts that are completely correct.
Click to expand...

I don't care to talk politics with such a formidable opponent, so clever and wise, but I must object to the claim that your post was completely correct.

prevaricator: is a noun that means a person who speaks falsely; liar.
Click to expand...

Colons don't work like that.
 
The Big Dog said:
How does Abramson lying that Whittaker called the investigation legitimate make Seth a liar?
Click to expand...

One cannot say something that is not true without lying?

You can do better than that. Come on: show that he was lying, that he wasn't only wrong, and then explain how that dismantles his argument. The former you're dancing around, but the latter you're completely ignoring, which leads me to believe that you have no idea how to support your claim.
 
Last edited:
Curious how a claim, for example, that seth was quoting w's words becomes the other sides claim

Truly a mystery.

/although transparent enough that ones own fellow travelers start dragging our correspondent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom