|
 | What really happened with paul pelosi? | |
|
|
|
level1nobody
Super Regular
Cold Giver
| | P: | 11/01/2022 17:15 EST | | E: | 11/01/2022 17:24 EST |
| | |
 | moose poop wrote:
| level1nobody wrote:
What about the rest of what BABL said? | |
What about it. That was not what I was asking about. I disagree with his statement, but arguing about his opinion is silly. I asked about his statement of fact and if was accurate; because he has a habit of providing only partial facts. So when you provide a fact or the factual basis for a proposition you propose as being true, accurate or correct and you cherry pick it - or if not complete, it is misleading. You know,...mis-information. And that was my point, the he was misrepresenting the truth of the matter.
| |
Probably wasn't fair of me to target you with that response. It was a knee-jerk reaction that other people here have instilled in me over some time now.
BABL, like yourself and others, has extensive knowledge in a broad scope of topics, and he speaks extemporaneously. People should be able to speak extemporaneously, especially in a casual forum. And they should be corrected if and when they're wrong about something. But what they're (hypothetically) wrong about should not necessarily detract from what they're right about.
As for myself, I've read a few articles and listened to a fair amount of commentary on the Whitmer case and my general understanding was that up to half of them were FBI informants/assets, and there were a number of acquittals. If I had said what BABL said, it would not have been a deliberate act of misinformation nor a breach of my integrity.
🎻 [Oscars play-off music]
Partial facts are a problem, but we can't pretend that the S.O.P. here isn't to go to www.ImRight.com (credit Bill Burr) and counter someone else's partial facts with our partial facts. If one of us has a lack of integrity, then most of us here don't either.
And that's the problem with facts (Hold your scoffing fits, everyone.): It's too easy to dazzle and distract. In its best moments, a fact will enlighten and join intellectually honest people in consensus. At its worst, its use will attempt to destroy a greater point by drawing people's attention away from a laundry list of valid examples and only focusing on a specific correction that does not detract much — if at all — from the spirit of the point being made.
🎻 [Oscars play-off music intensifies]
Take for example PTA's post: forum.php?a=vt&f=2&t=18238 He was making one big general point. In my interpretation, that was "The damage and hatred caused by the overly-propagandized response to COVID is too great for people to simply forgive, despite a back-handed act of contrition by The Atlantic. How long did it take for the conversation to digress into "Well, other vaccines are mandatory," and other low-level arguments we've already had a dozen times? How does that challenge PTA's point? His point is valid no matter the history of other vaccines, no matter its efficacy, and no matter its transmissability.
🎻 [WRAP IT UP!]
And that's where I return to BABL's comment: | Russia collusion, Russia paying bounties on US troops in Afghanistan, Hunter Biden's laptop being Russia disinformation, Epstein's "suicide," Jussie Smollet, the black NASCAR driver and the garage pull cord that wasn't a noose, and of course the Manhattan project level coordination of government, corporations, media and social media to convince people to get vaccinated and vilify anyone with any legitimate reservations as crackpot conspiracy theorists. | |
All of that supports the argument that corporate or otherwise ideologically-compromised media outlets lie to us, a lot. Add to that the specific number of acquittals or mistrials in contention. How does a difference in the number of acquittals change the fact that this was a fed op? Sure, these guys had some hate brewing for Whitmer. And they had guns. At some point the FBI, through its assets, facilitated turning thought crime into conspiracy to kidnap. It seems perfectly logical to me that the fates of the men involved would straddle the line between acquittal and guilt by conspiracy, especially considering that the FBI blurred the line between genuine intent and getting caught up in a crazy scheme by some of the world's most notable mind-fuckers. | |
|
|
angry_salad
Super Regular
Medic Capping
Service
|  | | P: | 11/01/2022 17:16 EST | | E: | 11/01/2022 17:28 EST |
| | |
| [SHS]Hitz wrote:
| angry_salad wrote:
ITT: Hitz and BABL trying to out-retard each other. Surprised that you dolts haven't accused him of doing it to himself yet. | |
Uh oh, here comes the green-haired, soy boy brigade. Stop believing the “news” and start asking questions. The Pelosi house has armed guards outside it 24/7. Isn’t that worth asking questions about? i.e. how did this guy get past them? Old Man Pelosi himself told the po-po he was a friend. They were both in their undies. No questions yet?
| |
I do have a question. What is the name of the facility where you are institutionalized? | |
|
|
moose poop
Super Regular
Body Splatter
| | P: | 11/01/2022 17:41 EST |
| | |
| [SHS]Hitz wrote:
Pelosi is 3rd in line to the Presidency. Even as a Brit, I know she’s going to get SS protection. The media says she has SS protection. Google maps shows her house under SS protection. So, I’m presuming there were SS agents present at the time of this “attack”. I think that’s a fair assumption and something worth questioning.
| |
While my knowledge on this subject is limited, from my first hand experience the protection you reference is usually not supplied unless the primary is present; yet it can be requested.
If in fact there was some security in place, that does raise, at least, consideration of further inquiry. Yet, as far as I am aware that was not the case. Hence my query. From time in the City, yes this is a residential area that is easily accessible, at least the public right of way. | |
|
|
moose poop
Super Regular
Body Splatter
| | P: | 11/01/2022 17:42 EST | | E: | 11/01/2022 17:44 EST |
| | |
| moose poop wrote:
Anyone see the connection to the Beatles? | |
No Maxwell's Silver Hammer fans?? | |
|
|
|
| | |
@level1, it actually probably would have helped my argument, as moose poop pointed out, to have included that yes, some people were found guilty. It would have "covered my bases" so to speak and put me a couple steps ahead. I point out that yes some people were found guilty (the counter-point that the FBI is simply beyond reproach) but the fact that there were mistrials and not guilty verdicts (my point that the FBI was engaged in a conspiracy which is literally one of the arguments of the defense attorneys). I just felt it wasn't germane to the point I was making; it wasn't intended to "misinform" the way the media did with the various examples I previously posted. Lest we forget, WMD's in Iraq, lest I give off the impression Democrats/leftists are the only ones guilty of misinformation. But as you said, posting on an internet forum I'm a little more extemporaneous as opposed to writing a master degree thesis. | |
|
|
|
| | |
BABL, you know my post wasn't criticizing your comment, right?
In any case, my reply to Moose did feel misdirected... again, just a knee-jerk reaction that prompted a response that I should have saved for another time.
I've come a long way politically and don't like the person I was ten or so years ago. So I'm trying to make a conscious effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when I'm discussing opposing viewpoints. If someone's right about ten things but wrong about one thing, then it's "Hey, those are some great points but..." instead of "You said 'podium' where you should have said 'lectern,' so you're completely full of shit." | |
|
|
|
| | |
Yes. I enjoyed your podium and lecture analogy.
Are we ever on the server at the same time? I see a lot of people post on the forums that I dont think I ever play with due to the tine difference. I'm usually on when the sky box is morning tine (night time my time). | |
|
|
level1nobody
Super Regular
Cold Giver
| | P: | 11/02/2022 11:18 EST | | E: | 11/02/2022 12:57 EST |
| | |
Yep, you'll see me as some variant of "Lone Rangers" or maybe "Player accidentally," "this fuckin' guy." or "(1)Spectator."
I have some pretty obnoxious sprays you may recognize ("You have died of suddenly.") and I think I told you that yours could be bigger. I'm a jumbo-spray activist. | |
|
|
|
| | |
The big pipe spray you made kept reverting back to nothing every time I started TFC. I feel like I did something wrong
Someone told me it had too many pipes too, lol.
My pipes are still too big in my spray. | |
|
|
level1nobody
Super Regular
Cold Giver
| | P: | 11/02/2022 14:05 EST | | E: | 11/02/2022 14:58 EST |
| | |
Hmm, I'll update and send over a new set — just variations in number of pipes per spray and dimensions. I did make a minor fix to the WAD script, so maybe that'll help. I may start a new thread with some updated info and to troubleshoot. | |
|
|
|
| | |
| -[IBSC]-iLluSiON- wrote:
The big pipe spray you made kept reverting back to nothing every time I started TFC. I feel like I did something wrong
Someone told me it had too many pipes too, lol.
My pipes are still too big in my spray. | |
Make the file "Read Only". | |
|
|
|
| Forums > Whiners Corner (Archives) > What really happened with paul pelosi? |
