Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension

[Dill]

(03-21-2018, 09:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you actually asserting they have not?  You'd be in the minority in this regard I can assure you. 
You still don't get it.  I'll spell it out like I'm talking to a child.  These kids have been endowed with near mythic potency by many, their every utterance is to be hung on.  Of course, we're talking about the anti-gun survivors.  My obvious point was expressing faux outrage that one of these kids assertions dare be questioned.  
Sure, if I was actually making a pro or anti statement about either party.
Wouldn't Haag have to have established some credibility before he gained or lost it?  As a brand new figure he has no credibility baseline for him to add or subtract from.  Seriously, the fact that such simple points completely elude you is baffling to me.
In a way that you completely didn't get.  You're the type of guy who doesn't get Norm MacDonald.

Stop white knighting your little internet buddies, it's embarrassing and nobody but the three of you give a crap.
Liar. 

To keep on track--the issue was never whether either Haag or CNN actually had credibility, just as the immediate issue (between you, me, Fred, and Dino) on this thread was not whether McCabe or the FBI had credibility.

The question has always been whether your challenges favored one side over the other, while maintaining either one must be lying or the other. So "spelling out" why Haab has cred and repeating CNN doesn't is just hopefully spinning discussion off into other, safer, issues.

So back to my still unanswered point about what can logically be derived from neutral claims like "he said they said" or "time will tell."  Nothing in that statement implies I am calling the boy a liar, but you nevertheless saw an "accusation" there, not of CNN but of the boy, just as you saw an "assertion" about the FBI in Dino's statement, not about McCabe. (You have admitted than in Dino's case your prejudgment informed your reading of his actual statement.  You were responding more to your beliefs about Dino than what he actually wrote.)

Once this is pointed out, all we have from you is ad hocery about how your ONLY point was "someone" was lying, as if no one noticed all the additional points about survivors and CNN's lost cred. Followed by fogging, personal attacks, scattershot quips, and lots of talk about CNN. "Liars" just "don't get" your points and, when forced to explain, you don't seem to get them either. 

Of interest is that, independently of actual content, the same logical/argumentative form was repeated on this thread, starting with your challenge that someone must be calling someone a liar. either/or. And when I start taking apart your claims, accurately quoting them, then I too am a liar.  Lying everywhere. Fake news.