Border Crisis- Biden's Worse Than Hitler

[BFritz21]

(03-27-2021, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You were smarter than me.  I posted a list with over a dozen examples of Biden leaving the white house and how does Brad respond?





Love the way he used "obviously" and "probably" in his explanation for why he refuses to address the truth.

You blow up his lame argument and he just refuses to acknowledge it.  He does not need facts when he has the right-wing media to tell him what to believe.

Correction, as I pointed out, two of the first three were lies when he didn't leave the White House, so why would I think the rest weren't also lies?

This is typical of you and something you have done a bunch in the past: post lies, get called out on it, and yet still insist that they weren't lies and ignore the posts that contain the FACTS about you lying.

[BFritz21]

(03-27-2021, 09:29 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: How can you say you quit reading his list AND that you look into what people post?

More likely you read the first couple of lines, get a rage bone, and resume posting ill informed nonsense.

Because, when making an argument, you always start out with facts and hardcore evidence, so, if 2 of his first 3 were lies, why would I think the majority of the rest weren't also lies?

[BigPapaKain]

(03-27-2021, 04:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because, when making an argument, you always start out with facts and hardcore evidence, so, if 2 of his first 3 were lies, why would I think the majority of the rest weren't also lies?

Except nothing he said was a lie. Just because what he said is devastating to your 'argument' doesn't mean you get to write it off as a lie.

[KillerGoose]

(03-27-2021, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If he's lying about two of the first three, why would I assume that any of the rest have any truth to them?

It's called logic: Fred wouldn't take 30 seconds to click the link to my website to see that it included all of the things he said it needed, so why would I continue to follow his links when he lied about two of the first three?

Please answer me that.

Im not arguing the validity of any of that. I’m simply laughing at the absurdity of your statement. You claim that you “look into what is posted” and then you admit to not even reading 10% of what he wrote.

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2021, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You were smarter than me.  I posted a list with over a dozen examples of Biden leaving the white house and how does Brad respond?





Love the way he used "obviously" and "probably" in his explanation for why he refuses to address the truth.

You blow up his lame argument and he just refuses to acknowledge it.  He does not need facts when he has the right-wing media to tell him what to believe.

Yup. That's why I've taken the approach I have. Smarmy jabs? Damn skippy. Any actual work like what I would put in responding to some other posters? Hell-to-the-nah.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Like I said in another thread awhile back . . .

Social Media: "We're deleting false and untrue statements"
GOP: "This is an assault on the first Amendment!"

This tells me a lot more about the GOP than it does about Social Media.

[Benton]

(03-27-2021, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If he's lying about two of the first three, why would I assume that any of the rest have any truth to them?

It's called logic: Fred wouldn't take 30 seconds to click the link to my website to see that it included all of the things he said it needed, so why would I continue to follow his links when he lied about two of the first three?

Please answer me that.

I dunno man. I don't see your point. You're giving Biden greif for his lack of visiting foreign countries in his first three months, but it was a year and a half before trump did that.

[BFritz21]

(03-27-2021, 05:06 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Except nothing he said was a lie. Just because what he said is devastating to your 'argument' doesn't mean you get to write it off as a lie.

He said that those links proved that Biden left the White House.  I pointed out that two of the first three were Biden not leaving the White House, meaning what he posted as truth wasn't truth, which is a lie.

Do you understand what a lie is?

(03-27-2021, 05:32 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Im not arguing the validity of any of that. I’m simply laughing at the absurdity of your statement. You claim that you “look into what is posted” and then you admit to not even reading 10% of what he wrote.

Because if 66% of the first three of what he posted was false, why would I keep looking at the others and why would any person believe that the rest contained truth, especially when people generally start out with their strong points?

Not that absurd.  It's called being logical.

[BFritz21]

(03-28-2021, 01:17 AM)Benton Wrote: I dunno man. I don't see your point. You're giving Biden greif for his lack of visiting foreign countries in his first three months, but it was a year and a half before trump did that.

False.

I'm giving Biden grief for not visiting much of anywhere and his lack of leaving the White House.

[KillerGoose]

(03-28-2021, 11:20 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: He said that those links proved that Biden left the White House.  I pointed out that two of the first three were Biden not leaving the White House, meaning what he posted as truth wasn't truth, which is a lie.

Do you understand what a lie is?

Because if 66% of the first three of what he posted was false, why would I keep looking at the others and why would any person believe that the rest contained truth, especially when people generally start out with their strong points?

Not that absurd.  It's called being logical.

Hey, you do you man. You don’t come in here for rational or logical discussion, so it’s pointless to debate you on anything related to this.

[BFritz21]

(03-28-2021, 11:36 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Hey, you do you man. You don’t come in here for rational or logical discussion, so it’s pointless to debate you on anything related to this.

lol.  

I offer logical discussion and rational points, point out that he posts lies, and you accuse me of being the one that it's pointless to debate with?

Please explain your logic there!

[GMDino]

(03-28-2021, 11:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

I'm giving Biden grief for not visiting much of anywhere and his lack of leaving the White House.

Trumps first 100 days...day by day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/04/29/what-happened-in-the-first-100-days-of-trump-presidency/100944988/

Day 43 visits a school in Florida.

Quote:Seeking to get past stories about Sessions and Russia, Trump spends the day visiting a school in Florida.

He went to Detroit on day 55.

Quote:Trump also travels to Detroit to speak to autoworkers before heading to a rally in Nashville.

Day 89 he went to Kenosha 

Quote:Trump heads to Snap-On Tools in Kenosha, Wis., to speak about manufacturing and sign a "Buy American, Hire American" executive order. 

Day 99 he went to Georgia to speak to the NRA.


Days Trump golfed (first 100 days only):

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-often-trump-golfed-during-first-100-days-compared-to-obama-bush-and-clinton-2017-4

Quote:During his first 100 days in office, Trump has found more time for golf than than each of his last three predecessors.


Clinton played more golf than Obama did in the first 100 days, according to his official daily schedules.


Here's how often Trump and his three predecessors golfed during each's first 100 days in office:



Skye Gould/Business Insider

Biden...so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Joe_Biden_(2021)

He went to WI (two stops) Feb 16 and 19.

He went to Houston Feb 26.

He went to Atlanta March 19.

He went to Columbus OH March 23.

Zero golf dates yet.

[KillerGoose]

(03-28-2021, 11:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: lol.  

I offer logical discussion and rational points, point out that he posts lies, and you accuse me of being the one that it's pointless to debate with?

Please explain your logic there!

Well, to begin with, I already posted my thoughts and opinions on the actual topic of this thread a page or two back. You chose to ignore that, which is very typical of you. That’s my main basis for that statement; you don’t come into this area of the website for rational or logical conversation. You come in to say Biden sucks and then get into spats with posters about things not even remotely related to the topic you posted. Like you’re doing here.

To be more direct on what we are talking about now, if you lack the intellectual capacity to understand why it is humorous to claim that you “look into what is posted” and then follow that up with claiming that you “stopped reading after the third line”, I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m not saying that you should inspect everything that Fred reads. I’m saying that making the claim that you check everything that is posted while simultaneously claiming you didn’t even read 10% of what was posted is comical. It doesn’t mean that you’re being stupid because there are plenty of times where I have started reading something and then just found it wasn’t worth the effort to finish. I am also not claiming that I read whatever that was, or looked into whatever that was.

This is a lot of explaining for something that I found funny and shouldn’t be this difficult to understand. I don’t even know why I am explaining this.

[BFritz21]

(03-28-2021, 11:54 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Well, to begin with, I already posted my thoughts and opinions on the actual topic of this thread a page or two back. You chose to ignore that, which is very typical of you. That’s my main basis for that statement; you don’t come into this area of the website for rational or logical conversation. You come in to say Biden sucks and then get into spats with posters about things not even remotely related to the topic you posted. Like you’re doing here.

To be more direct on what we are talking about now, if you lack the intellectual capacity to understand why it is humorous to claim that you “look into what is posted” and then follow that up with claiming that you “stopped reading after the third line”, I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m not saying that you should inspect everything that Fred reads. I’m saying that making the claim that you check everything that is posted while simultaneously claiming you didn’t even read 10% of what was posted is comical. It doesn’t mean that you’re being stupid because there are plenty of times where I have started reading something and then just found it wasn’t worth the effort to finish. I am also not claiming that I read whatever that was, or looked into whatever that was.

This is a lot of explaining for something that I found funny and shouldn’t be this difficult to understand. I don’t even know why I am explaining this.

How many times do I have to explain this:  if the 66% fo the first three "examples" that Fred posts are false, why would anyone waste the time to read the rest, especially when Fred has been known to post false links before?  (I know he'll try to get me banned for that, so I apologize to the mods, but I'm not bashing or attacking him, I'm just stating facts.)

A good debater starts off their argument with strong facts and finishes strong, so why would I bother to think the rest of the links had anything worthwhile if 2 of the first 3 were wrong?

[KillerGoose]

(03-28-2021, 02:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How many times do I have to explain this:  if the 66% fo the first three "examples" that Fred posts are false, why would anyone waste the time to read the rest, especially when Fred has been known to post false links before?  (I know he'll try to get me banned for that, so I apologize to the mods, but I'm not bashing or attacking him, I'm just stating facts.)

A good debater starts off their argument with strong facts and finishes strong, so why would I bother to think the rest of the links had anything worthwhile if 2 of the first 3 were wrong?

Lol. Brad. You’re arguing something that I’m not arguing. This isn’t hard. I’m not saying you are dumb for not reading the rest of his post. I understand why you didn’t, crystal clear.

I’m laughing at you because you said you look into what people post, and then you didn’t read his post. That’s it. I thought it was funny.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-28-2021, 11:20 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: He said that those links proved that Biden left the White House.  I pointed out that two of the first three were Biden not leaving the White House, meaning what he posted as truth wasn't truth, which is a lie.

Do you understand what a lie is?

Like someone saying they read everything and then they openly admit they only read about 10% of what is said?

[Tiger Teeth]

(03-28-2021, 11:36 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Hey, you do you man. You don’t come in here for rational or logical discussion, so it’s pointless to debate you on anything related to this.

rep x 10

[CJD]

Brad threads are always entertaining.



Trump is a fascist.

[BFritz21]

(03-28-2021, 02:51 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Lol. Brad. You’re arguing something that I’m not arguing. This isn’t hard. I’m not saying you are dumb for not reading the rest of his post. I understand why you didn’t, crystal clear.

I’m laughing at you because you said you look into what people post, and then you didn’t read his post. That’s it. I thought it was funny.

I did read his post.  How many times do I have to state that?!

I simply stopped checking because if two of the first three were wrong, why would I keep checking?

It's called common sense.  

He obviously just posted a bunch of links hoping that no one would check.

[KillerGoose]

(03-29-2021, 12:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I did read his post.  How many times do I have to state that?!

I simply stopped checking because if two of the first three were wrong, why would I keep checking?

It's called common sense.  

He obviously just posted a bunch of links hoping that no one would check.

Well, one, you haven’t claimed that you read his post a single time. So, you saying “how many times do I have to state that” doesn’t make any sense because you haven’t said it.

As a matter of fact, you quite literally said “I stopped reading after that”. Which, in this case, “that” is after the third line. There was no mention of “stopping checking”. You literally said you had stopped reading. That is why I’m laughing at you. If you meant to say checking, then that is fine and dandy but that isn’t what you said.

Great job at engaging in discussion about the topic you brought up. You sure are mentally sharp and great at intellectual conversation, little buddy. We have been arguing about a joke I made for over a page now. How stimulating.