For those that Ha ha'd

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 11:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:


Again there were words...factual words...that misrepresented the truth.  Just like in your follow up.

Have a victory lap for dissecting my post and swear to defend Trump some more.  Maybe he taught you how to insult?

G'night funnyman.

There was nothing to dissect. You quoted dude's thread and said it was without facts. Unsure what defending Trump, semantics, or insults have to do with it. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2018, 06:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "I would prefer they would focus on what I do and on my initiatives than what I wear.”

So let me get this straight.  Melania claimed that in order to get people to NOT talk about what she was wearing she wore the most controversial garment she could find and then refused to comment about it for 4 months.  Instead she had her spokesperson lie and claim there was "no message".

And you believed her?

Please stop bullying Melania. No one has ever had it as hard as this woman. 

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have I explained the reason FLOTUS wore the jacket was to send a message to trolls such as yourself multiple times? 

Are you suggesting I'm really brilliant enough to know the exact reason she wore the jacket without reading previous reports where she gave her reasoning or do you think perhaps I have read such reports?

No I don't think you ever read any reports.  You were just blindly repeating what Fox News told you to believe.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not assume anyone is a liar, I just give the accused the benefit of the doubt. 

So in a "he said/she said" situation only one side can be telling the truth.  You always assume to accused is telling the truth (presumption of innocence).  Yet you don't assume the accuser is not telling the truth?

[Dill]

(10-18-2018, 12:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I don't think you ever read any reports.  You were just blindly repeating what Fox News told you to believe.

I think Fox News is what he meant by "reports."

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 12:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I don't think you ever read any reports.  You were just blindly repeating what Fox News told you to believe.

So according to "Fred logic" Fox News cannot report. WTS, I'm unsure of the source(s), but I doubt it was Mother Jones where you most likely read she was wearing the jacket because she did not care about the children.

(10-18-2018, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So in a "he said/she said" situation only one side can be telling the truth.  You always assume to accused is telling the truth (presumption of innocence).  Yet you don't assume the accuser is not telling the truth?

Yes, all else equal, I will side with the accused.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-18-2018, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So in a "he said/she said" situation only one side can be telling the truth. 

Truth is relative, so in a he said/she said situation, there is a possibility that NEITHER side is lying and/or both are telling what they believe to be the truth.

[BmorePat87]

Quote:"It's a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today's important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn't going to choose to focus on her wardrobe." -Melania Trump's spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham 6/21/18

She also tweeted that day with the hashtag #JustaJacket


This is what people are referencing when they say that the narrative changed.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Because I don't automatically assume folks are lying, but you do you

Yes you do.

(10-18-2018, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, all else equal, I will side with the accused.

By assuming the accuser is lying.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 02:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She also tweeted that day with the hashtag #JustaJacket


This is what people are referencing when they say that the narrative changed.

Nah, folks are just looking to excuse their hate. The Left pushed the narrative (well no one in this forum they are far too open-minded) that she wore the jacket to show she didn't care about the children. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 02:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you do.



By assuming the accuser is lying.

Oh, I thought I don't automatically assume folks are lying, but thanks for setting me straight


Or confused, mistaken, ill, ect........You don't have to go "full Fred" and assume there has to be a liar. 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, folks are just looking to excuse their hate. The Left pushed the narrative (well no one in this forum they are far too open-minded) that she wore the jacket to show she didn't care about the children. 

She created the narrative, not the left.

She wore the coat only one time for only one purpose.  So it was natural to assume she wore it to make a statement about that one specific issue.  If it was intended as some sort of "F You" to the media she would have worn it other times also.  Or were we supposed to assume that she only cared what the media said that one specific time?

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 04:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I thought I don't automatically assume folks are lying, but thanks for setting me straight


Or confused, mistaken, ill, ect........You don't have to go "full Fred" and assume there has to be a liar. 

So you automatically assume one side is telling the truth and one side is not.

Have fun with your semantics.  The meaning does not change.  A woman says she was raped by a man and you tell her 
the man is innocent and she is wrong.

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 02:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She also tweeted that day with the hashtag #JustaJacket


This is what people are referencing when they say that the narrative changed.

I am sure she was just confused, mistaken, or maybe even ill.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She created the narrative, not the left.

She wore the coat only one time for only one purpose.  So it was natural to assume she wore it to make a statement about that one specific issue.  If it was intended as some sort of "F You" to the media she would have worn it other times also.  Or were we supposed to assume that she only cared what the media said that one specific time?

No she didn't she simply wore a jacket, the left created the narrative. Hell, Pat even shared a quote very early in the process where she said it was just a jacket. The Left is simply trying to excuse its vile nature. Fortunately, folks are starting to grow quite tired of it.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 04:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you automatically assume one side is telling the truth and one side is not.

Have fun with your semantics.  The meaning does not change.  A woman says she was raped by a man and you tell her 
the man is innocent and she is wrong.

Both could be telling the truth as they know it at the time.

Have fun with your hate. I would not immediately tell the woman she is wrong, I might say I need some proof. Crazy, I know. 


I know how much you hate when you cannot put words in folks mouths, but it entertaining to see you continue to try. 

As I said, you do you. 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No she didn't she simply wore a jacket, the left created the narrative. Hell, Pat even shared a quote very early in the process where she said it was just a jacket. The Left is simply trying to excuse its vile nature. Fortunately, folks are starting to grow quite tired of it.

You can't pretend that wearing a jacket WITH A MESSAGE WRITTEN ON IT was not intended as a message.

BTW the only folks whining about the vile nature of the left are the people on the right.  Normal people in the middle realize that when people wear clothing with messages written on them they are trying to send a message.

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I would not immediately tell the woman she is wrong, 

Yes you would.  You cried for days about how the "fabric of the nation" would be destroyed if we all did not assume the accused was innocent and the accuser was wrong.

(10-18-2018, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I might say I need some proof. Crazy, I know. 

Yes.  It is bat shit crazy to automatically believe one side over the other without seeing any proof. That is why it should only apply in a criminal court.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't pretend that wearing a jacket WITH A MESSAGE WRITTEN ON IT was not intended as a message.

BTW the only folks whining about the vile nature of the left are the people on the right.  Normal people in the middle realize that when people wear clothing with messages written on them they are trying to send a message.

Of course there was a message, it was to troll haters and it worked like a charm. The Left was insistent on it being a message that she didn't care about the children. The Left created that narrative, not FLOTUS. 

I was simply sharing what Pat quoted about her wearing it.  I knew very early in the process and shared it on this very message board with, why she wore it. She was sending a message to the haters; she was talking to you Fred. 

As I said, no one is going to take away your right to hate, just don't get mad, when you realize you've been played the fool by FLOTUS.

Guess we'll see people's views on the Left's words and actions soon enough.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you would.  You cried for days about how the "fabric of the nation" would be destroyed if we all did not assume the accused was innocent and the accuser was wrong.




Yes.  It is bat shit crazy to automatically believe one side over the other without seeing any proof

Nowhere did I say the accuser was wrong. This is Fred just making shit up,. But I know how this goes so, I'm ceasing this back and forth: