Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 526432)

One of the many reasons I don't engage substantively with you is that you are dishonest, and one of the more obvious and tedious ways that you are dishonest is that you constantly change the argument of the person you are arguing with, and then provide a counter-argument to your made up version of what you pretend to be arguing about. You have gone so far in the past as to "quote" (as in, with actual quotation marks) something that I never said, and then provide a strenuous argument against the "quoted" argument that I never made. This is why your debates with Ty consist primarily of: "When you said x, you're a fool." "But I never said x." "Well here is something you said that is kind of x-ish." "No it's not, we were talking about something completely different." Etc., etc., etc., etc. Arguing with liars is pointless.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 526431)

You wonder what he means when he says that communities might find themselves without the police protection that they need. It has the apocalyptic whiff of the NRA types who arm themselves to prepare for the coming anarchy.

I don't mind a political figure suggesting that the police deserve respect, so long as they also saying that the police need to earn that respect. Obviously, that's not what Barr is up to.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 526433)

I do wish you'd finish the argument and fill in those etc.s, because you have the basics down cold. Or are those etc.s really more like a repeat sign in music, where we just go back and repeat the same song and dance all over again?

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 526435)

The etc.'s are really more like variations on the same theme. Sometimes Sebastian is countering an argument you never made. Sometimes you counter something he said and he says that he never actually said it, even though you can see that he did say it, just the day before. Sometimes he argues that, even if he did say it, words don't mean what you think they mean. Etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 526437)

So, Hank, if you didn’t go to Harvard and a Yale law at the same time, would you give money to your law school that employs a professor who testifies before Congress that impeachment without a crime is unprecedented even in the face of explicit evidence of the crime of soliciting a thing of value from a foreign person.

If you had instead gone to GW, do would you be nauseous about Prof Turley’s willingness to lie?

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 526432)

One of the many reasons I don't engage substantively with you is that you are dishonest, and one of the more obvious and tedious ways that you are dishonest is that you constantly change the argument of the person you are arguing with, and then provide a counter-argument to your made up version of what you pretend to be arguing about. You have gone so far in the past as to "quote" (as in, with actual quotation marks) something that I never said, and then provide a strenuous argument against the "quoted" argument that I never made. This is why your debates with Ty consist primarily of: "When you said x, you're a fool." "But I never said x." "Well here is something you said that is kind of x-ish." "No it's not, we were talking about something completely different." Etc., etc., etc., etc. Arguing with liars is pointless.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 526438)

My suspicion is that all of us went to schools that graduated some mix of asshats and angels, and blaming the schools for this makes no sense.

Am I right that we all went to schools other than Dartmouth?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526425)

My sole cable news guilty pleasure is Morning Joe. Occasionally, I listen while driving.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526439)

I told you I didn't want you to engage me. Why do you think I'd care why you don't? I only responded as I did here because I was able to do it in a pithy way.

Do as you say, and do it more comprehensively.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526430)

You run into a lot of dumb people in my state. I'm kind of tired of hearing them speak as though they've not finished seventh grade. Younger people are the worst with it. Texting's robbed them of all capacity to formulate and express complex thought. And most of these people live in the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 526437)

So, Hank, if you didn’t go to Harvard and a Yale law at the same time, would you give money to your law school that employs a professor who testifies before Congress that impeachment without a crime is unprecedented even in the face of explicit evidence of the crime of soliciting a thing of value from a foreign person.

If you had instead gone to GW, do would you be nauseous about Prof Turley’s willingness to lie?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 526438)

My suspicion is that all of us went to schools that graduated some mix of asshats and angels, and blaming the schools for this makes no sense.

Am I right that we all went to schools other than Dartmouth?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 526444)

Is it really lying, or is it just a willingness to adopt the views necessary to keep the TV cameras on him? If you don't like what he believes, he can believe something else.