Re: 2020 Election Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:19 am
There you go again. Anything connected to government must be crooked.
Because, we have never had evidence or examples of this in the history of the country? Do I have that right? Is that what you are claiming? And I didn't say "anything connected to the government", that was you.
I think for the most part, that is true. In this case, it's entirely politically motivated and this will become obvious.
OK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.
So you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:32 amI am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.
I'm not unwilling. I will in time. It's just not the time.Indy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:37 amOK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.
My main point is you don’t own it. You are afraid to say you are pro-Trump even though you defend him and attack anything apposing him. You say you are anti-Russia but all your posts are pro-Russia. I don’t think all Dems or all government employees are saints. I just don’t think all of them are evil and corrupt like you do. I know some of the media slants the news to fit their agenda of pro or anti whatever party. I just don’t think they are lying about everything 100% of the time like you do. When I see Trump on five stations saying the same stupid thing on video, I don’t automatically assume they all doctored the video to make Trump say what he did maliciously.In2ition wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:39 amSo you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:32 amI am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.
I wonder which one is more realistic?
lol now you just use trump's talking pointsIn2ition wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:40 amI'm not unwilling. I will in time. It's just not the time.Indy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:37 amOK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.
LOL, I honestly tried to find those videos for you. I should have saved them prior, clairvoyantly knowing that you would reflexively post that it was a Russian tank. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything and just let you believe that it was a Russian tank, so that you could continue to propagate misinformation. My bad.Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:56 amMy main point is you don’t own it. You are afraid to say you are pro-Trump even though you defend him and attack anything apposing him. You say you are anti-Russia but all your posts are pro-Russia. I don’t think all Dems or all government employees are saints. I just don’t think all of them are evil and corrupt like you do. I know some of the media slants the news to fit their agenda of pro or anti whatever party. I just don’t think they are lying about everything 100% of the time like you do. When I see Trump on five stations saying the same stupid thing on video, I don’t automatically assume they all doctored the video to make Trump say what he did maliciously.In2ition wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:39 amSo you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:32 amI am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.
I wonder which one is more realistic?
Your post just now where you tell Indy now is not the time to share your secret info is typical In2ition. Make a claim and then don’t back it up with anything. “The Russian tank swerving to hit the Ukrainian car was actually avoiding being shot at by Ukrainians”. “And if that story doesn’t pan out then it was probably a Ukrainian military vehicle that did it.” What is my evidence? Now is not the time for that evidence….
You apparently took that personally, and it wasn't meant to be a personal jab at you. I thought I said that you should be careful that it may be misinformation and it's disputed that it's a Russian tank.Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:38 amI posted the video of the armored vehicle swerving to run over the car. You posted that it was all misinformation and didn’t post any evidence to back your claim. You say now you saw a video someplace that gave you your version of the story but, didn’t post it and can’t find it now. My guess was because it came from someone named Hillarysucks Twitter account. That story was posted in a lot of mainstream places and none of them had your version of the story. They were all spreading misinformation and you are positive about that. You just aren't able to provide any evidence to back your claim. The armored vehicle swerved to run over the car. It stopped on top of the car. Then it backed up and continued on it’s way.
You signature until very recently was “Let’s go Brandon”.
I'm not trying to trigger people(which seemed to be the case when it was in English), but I still don't like what the guy is doing to the US. I do appreciate that he hasn't gotten us into direct conflict with Russia though.
I definitely went back and forth on whether to ask In2 to remove "Let's Go Brandon" from his .net signature. I ultimately decided I shouldn't ask him to remove it. While it has an arguably vulgar meaning, and is explicitly political in nature, it is not an actual profanity and only has a colloquial meaning to folks who are let's say "very online" and follow some of these mostly-on-social-media twitter trends and things. And if I'm on the fence about something I would generally like to err on the side of letting people express themselves vs explicitly censoring them. So long as it is not an explicit attack on another board member.