Tara Reade working with Ronan Farrow

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

my phone now
let’s me see the ad. detbuch is right. it doesn’t say what it was alleged to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then when asked about it why doesn't he say I never said that the five kids should be executed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Then when asked about it why doesn't he say I never said that the five kids should be executed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is obvious that would have no effect other than extending the ridiculous conversation. It is obvious that he didn't say it. It is obvious that a spin was concocted to damage Trump. It is obvious, as is being demonstrated here, that denying what is obviously untrue would not change the contrived narrative that he said they should be executed, because the narrative was not meant to be the truth. It was meant to damage Trump--so it will not be abandoned.

Denying it would just be called another Trump "lie." Better to just shrug it off and move on.

And you still cannot show that trump said the Five should be executed because he didn't say it. Pete F made the accusation. The burden of proof rests on Pete, and on you if you want to keep extending the narrative.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I can't read it so post it up. And where exactly did I say he said they should be executed? What I said is the ad is written sloppily and people will assume that's what he meant.

If you couldn't read it, how could you tell what was in it?

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
"To be fair it doesn't say 'execute the central park five' but he conveniently it ran during or before the trial (I can't recall which)...."


PaulS: "No, he is a sloppy talker and writer. While it doesn't say bring back the death penalty, he mentions the park (and given the timing) any reasonable person would assume that is what he meant."

Originally Posted by Pete F.
"He still does [claim that Trump called for the Five to be executed] and his comment about them pleading guilty is very interesting when you look at it along with current events in the Flynn case."

PaulS: "Agreed I was just going to come back and say that."

No, you didn't "exactly" say that Trump called for the Five to be executed. And I'm not going to weasel word claim that "any reasonable person would assume that is what [you] meant." Nor, BTW, did Trump "exactly" say that. As a matter of fact, he specifically said that murderers should be executed--not that the Five should. The Five did not murder the biker, nor did he did claim that they did. The ad was mostly not about the Five, nor did he "exactly" even refer to them.

So my quibble is not really with you. It is with what Pete F claimed. And you did seem to back him up. If you do not "exactly" agree with Pete F, that's fine with me. If I am mistaken that you think Trump called for the Central Park Five to be executed, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if you think Pete F is right, that Trump did call for that, then I retract my apology and request that you back it up by pointing out where he "exactly" said (or even implied that he said) that the Five should be executed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you couldn't read it, how could you tell what was in it?

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
"To be fair it doesn't say 'execute the central park five' but he conveniently it ran during or before the trial (I can't recall which)...."


PaulS: "No, he is a sloppy talker and writer. While it doesn't say bring back the death penalty, he mentions the park (and given the timing) any reasonable person would assume that is what he meant."

Originally Posted by Pete F.
"He still does [claim that Trump called for the Five to be executed] and his comment about them pleading guilty is very interesting when you look at it along with current events in the Flynn case."

PaulS: "Agreed I was just going to come back and say that."

No, you didn't "exactly" say that Trump called for the Five to be executed. And I'm not going to weasel word claim that "any reasonable person would assume that is what [you] meant." Nor, BTW, did Trump "exactly" say that. As a matter of fact, he specifically said that murderers should be executed--not that the Five should. The Five did not murder the biker, nor did he did claim that they did. The ad was mostly not about the Five, nor did he "exactly" even refer to them.

So my quibble is not really with you. It is with what Pete F claimed. And you did seem to back him up. If you do not "exactly" agree with Pete F, that's fine with me. If I am mistaken that you think Trump called for the Central Park Five to be executed, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if you think Pete F is right, that Trump did call for that, then I retract my apology and request that you back it up by pointing out where he "exactly" said (or even implied that he said) that the Five should be executed.

a trouncing. an absolute trouncing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

a trouncing. an absolute trouncing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said earlier this is exactly why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said earlier this is exactly why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you claimed that detbuch was unfairly claiming you said trump
wanted the kids executed. then he very clearly pointed out that you said exactly that more than once.

if that’s not a trouncing, nothing is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said earlier this is exactly why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep this up and you won't have any friends left

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

keep this up and you won't have any friends left

Do you have any here? Because I noticed that snarky people are originally looked at as funny and then after a while people just start to ignore them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

paul, your hatred of Trump has you using the word “retard” to describe everyone who has anything wrong with them. i say that’s indicative of having a very rough time. you disagree, you don’t think it’s a sign of anything.

and i’m the #^&#^&#^&#^& for suggesting you not throw that term around. but you know better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, your hatred of Trump has you using the word “retard” to describe everyone who has anything wrong with them. i say that’s indicative of having a very rough time. you disagree, you don’t think it’s a sign of anything.

and i’m the #^&#^&#^&#^& for suggesting you not throw that term around. but you know better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the fifth time go back and re-read post 60. And you're a #^&#^&#^&#^& for the constant insults you throw around here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

For the fifth time go back and re-read post 60. And you're a #^&#^&#^&#^& for the constant insults you throw around here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i read it . but by your own admissions, you have zero evidence he ever made fun of such a person. i less you view all disabled people as “retards”, which is, well, have fun with that professor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i read it . but by your own admissions, you have zero evidence he ever made fun of such a person. i less you view all disabled people as “retards”, which is, well, have fun with that professor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He most certainly mocked the reporter whom he knew had a disability. And to prove, it just before he mocked him he said something like you should see this guy and then he went into his classless act. Not sure what you meant there but no I do not View disabled people as retards. go reread post 60 why I used those specific words.

I think it is pathetic that you try to defend Trump over this but your derangement has no end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He most certainly mocked the reporter whom he knew had a disability. And to prove, it just before he mocked him he said something like you should see this guy and then he went into his classless act. Not sure what you meant there but no I do not View disabled people as retards. go reread post 60 why I used those specific words.

I think it is pathetic that you try to defend Trump over this but your derangement has no end.

Trump claimed that he was mocking what he considered a frustrated journalist trying to explain away what he had previously written. His movements certainly were not an imitation of the reporter's disability, since that disability wouldn't have enabled the reporter to make those movements--movements that were similar to movements when he mocked others who were not disabled, and very similar to when he mocked Ted Cruz.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not sure what you meant there but no I do not View disabled people as retards. go reread post 60 why I used those specific words.

I
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but then you admitted you had no idea what this guys disability was.

you do t even know what you’re saying, you’re all over the place trying to attack trump.

you say trump was making fun of this reporter, but detbuch asked you 5 times to show some proof that the reporter moved the way trump did when mocking him. you never responded. gee i wonder why? i can’t think of any reason , can you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

I just assume that Jim and Dapussy would be ecstatic if their children, assuming they are capable of producing any, would turn out like the Citrus Caligula, his followers and their spawn.
We really need a country full of Trumps, Nunes and Jordan’s.
What a future
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I just assume that Jim and Dapussy would be ecstatic if their children, assuming they are capable of producing any, would turn out like the Citrus Caligula, his followers and their spawn.
We really need a country full of Trumps, Nunes and Jordan’s.
What a future
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if dapussy is my wife, she graduated cum laude with a degree in math from Union College and was a varsity athlete. She left a great actuarial career to stay home with our three boys, who are all taught that while trumps policies are superior to Hilary’s, his personal behavior is far from what’s tolerable, they are all fine, do well in school and all are into martial arts and baseball and basketball and cub scouts and fishing and camping. all is well here. Paul would probably call one of my kids a “retard” but that says more about him than it does us. likewise, that the best you can do is insult my mother and my wife, tells us that even you realize you can’t defend your asinine positions here. the irony is, you’re doing what trump would do. you claim that i endorse his personal behavior, when clearly it’s you who feels justified in insulting those with whom you disagree in this manner. kind of funny when you look at it that way.

you’re the only one here who is as pitiful as he is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

pete really needs to get back on his meds

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

pete really needs to get back on his meds

what are any of these guys going to do, if trump gets re elected?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what are any of these guys going to do, if trump gets re elected?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably to continue to discuss substantive things that he does or says versus the petty things that used to constantly be on this site in reference to Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No I don't know what his disability was, just that he had a disability. I did read one article that said the way he was mocking the reporter was different than the way he later mocked Cruz. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to do a side-by-side analysis of trump mocking people because it's obvious he mocked the reporter even though later he claimed he didn't know him. He knew who he was, he met with him previously, he knew he had a disability and just before mocking him he said you should see this guy. And you're so deranged that you continue to try to defend Trump. Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not about defending Trump, it's about sifting the germ of truth from the chaff of political spin. It would be valid enough to say that Trump was mocking the reporter. It can be argued whether that was proper or not. Maybe he deserved it maybe not. Trump even admitted he did. But to try to make it something worse than it might have been by seizing the opportunity to assume it was an insensitive, even sociopathic mocking of someone's disability simply because the reporter was disabled is worse than pathetic. It's a sociopathic disregard both of the disability as well as of the truth in order to gain some kind of power, to destroy someone for political gain.

[Sea Dangles]

Said the whiner with no filter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Said the whiner with no filter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Careful, he'll tell on you.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Careful, he'll tell on you.

Kevin
KEVIN!!!
Help,they are picking on me.🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Kevin
KEVIN!!!
Help,they are picking on me.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good one. Is it a wonder I think you are stupid and pathetic.

Let me get this right (and to use a baseball analogy)

lousy education - strike one
No earnings potential - strike two
overweight Rollie Pollie - strike three

Three strikes and you're …….








a loser

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Said the whiner with no filter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Take a walk today Rollie.

It will be good to get down that BMI.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Take a walk today Rollie.

It will be good to get down that BMI.

Tell me again the virtue of treating people nicely, Paul?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tell me again the virtue of treating people nicely, Paul?

What fantasy world do you live in?

Have I ever insulted him first? A Rollie Pollie guy like him would benefit from losing some weight.

He is sort of like you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What fantasy world do you live in?

Have I ever insulted him first? A Rollie Pollie guy like him would benefit from losing some weight.

He is sort of like you.

In the world in which I live, you like to claim the moral high ground and lecture others that they should play nice. Which is a notion I agree with, but concede I fall short of. Yet when we point out that you throw elbows with the best of them, you always whine about being picked on, you did it in this post. Every single time, it's someone else's fault. You are the only one who can act this way and still claim you're as innocent as a newborn kitten.

If I say that I only resort to insults when I feel that I've been pushed there, is that good enough for you? Or are you the only one who gets to play that card?

"I did it because he did it first " is an excuse that I don't let my children get away with. Even my middle son the "retard" knows better than to try that.

[Jim in CT]

Paul, in another thread, you denied you are a tattletale, but admitted that you went to Kevn with reports of others behaving in ways you didn't like, hoping he'd exert his authority. But that's not tattling.

In this post, you again claim that every single time you insult people, it's because they did it to you first. Every single time, you deny that you are responsible for your behavior, that someone else always made you do it. But you deny playing the victim card.

I'm not sure you know what "tattletale" or "playing the victim card" mean.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, in another thread, you denied you are a tattletale, but admitted that you went to Kevn with reports of others behaving in ways you didn't like, hoping he'd exert his authority. But that's not tattling.
For the 10th time. Bruce posted the rules for some reason and I said why not inforce them? I pointed out direct violations of those rules. Why post them but not inforce them?
In this post, you again claim that every single time you insult people, it's because they did it to you first. Every single time, you deny that you are responsible for your behavior, that someone else always made you do it. Nobody makes me "do it" I just see no reason to take the classless insults from people on this site.But you deny playing the victim card.

I'm not sure you know what "tattletale" or "playing the victim card" mean.

I know what both are.