Australian Politics Forum - Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75087
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #30 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? surely if that were the case he would have made it known he'd been duped by now, don't you think?

Especially thrumpy and his penchant for twittering. Cheesy

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #31 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #32 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #33 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias. There is no such thing as a neutral text.

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him Reply #34 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:56pm And this is how you end up believing in the Bowling Green MAssacre or that Trump had 2million+ at his inauguration. You start at the desire outcome and simply work back changing facts along the way. idiot.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #35 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:58pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias. There is no such thing as a neutral text.

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

what a ridiculous claim. Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it. but that degree may also be infinitessimally small so if you are going to make that ridiculoud claim then you have to QUANTIFY the degree of bias.

Ive played games with nuttes like you before. It is always the .1% argument while avoiding the 99.9%. Thats why you end up believing in the flat earth or vaccines cause autism etc

idiot.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75087
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #36 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.
Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #37 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:13pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.
Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now

forget it. Honky is just the kind of fool for whom there is no possible proof of anything he doesnt like.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #38 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:29pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias. There is no such thing as a neutral text.

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

what a ridiculous claim.

A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath.

Quote:

Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it.

You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #39 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:31pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it.

Probably? Or you hope so now I've shown you the flaw in your thinking?

Quote:

Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.

You don't know any judges and even if you did, it would be irrelevant since it was a spokesperson who confirmed 'something' and a journalist who wrote about it. The judges contribution was one, solitary word.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:46pm by ... »

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #40 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias. There is no such thing as a neutral text.

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

what a ridiculous claim.

A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath.

Quote:

Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it.

You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point.

Incomplete quotes and quots out of context are the bread and butter of fools and propagandists. are you the former, the latter or BOTH?

I see you cant tell me how many people attended Trumps inauguration. Too difficult for you to answer since you have to disagree with your Dark Lord Trump, his head witch COnway and court jester press secretary?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #41 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:33pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.
Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now

forget it. Honky is just the kind of fool for whom there is no possible proof of anything he doesnt like.

Sure there is - peoples own words, untainted by third party bias, as I stated twice already.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #42 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:35pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange Cheesy

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words. Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?

How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias. There is no such thing as a neutral text.

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

what a ridiculous claim.

A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath.

Quote:

Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it.

You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point.

Incomplete quotes and quots out of context are the bread and butter of fools and propagandists. are you the former, the latter or BOTH?

And this is why I pointed out that there was only one word of direct quotations in your article.

For some strange reason* you didn't object to it when it plays to your prejudice.

*not strange at all, just unpalatable to you.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #43 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

I see you cant tell me how many people attended Trumps inauguration. Too difficult for you to answer since you have to disagree with your Dark Lord Trump, his head witch COnway and court jester press secretary?

No, too difficult to answer because no such figures are kept. There is no answer.

I did say however that the number that physically attended was lower than Obamas, so what are you crying about?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75087
Gender: male

Re: Trumps own SCOTUS nominee skewers him
Reply #44 - Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:25pm

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

Probably? Or you hope so now I've shown you the flaw in your thinking?

at some time you're supposed to think for yourself and put 2 and 2 together rather than wait for someone to hold your hand.
I'll repeat, given trumps history, if it weren't true trump would have let you know by now.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

You don't know any judges and even if you did, it would be irrelevant since it was a spokesperson who confirmed 'something' and a journalist who wrote about it. The judges contribution was one, solitary word.

judges aren't in the habit of sending representatives who don't know what they are doing

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged