Trump and Russia

[Bob in Mich]

41 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Apparently that’s quite enough to make him close his eyes and cover his ears. 

 

Guess not. 

12 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Why have you been ignoring Tom for two years?

 

Granted Tom can seem rather abrasive at times, but has he ever threatened or verbally assaulted you?  Other than pointing out flaws in your logic and arguments, what has Tom done to force your retreat into your cyber Safe Space?

 

If you have been here any length of time on PPP, you know that Tom is a pompous prick.  I don't know him 'in person' and no, he has never threatened me. 

He seems to feel compelled to post nearly every time I post anywhere, though not to engage in the discussion.  Roughly 95% of his posts are little more than insults.  I found it a far better experience to simply ignore him completely. 

 

As I said, occasionally when bored I have attempted to make a reasonable argument to a Tom post only to be met with his typical insults.  Gets old.  Truth be told, the 5% of his comments that may attempt to further a conversation are really not worth much either.  I'll take the risk that I may miss something worth reading.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Guess not. 

 

If you have been here any length of time on PPP, you know that Tom is a pompous prick.  I don't know him 'in person' and no, he has never threatened me. 

He seems to feel compelled to post nearly every time I post anywhere, though not to engage in the discussion.  Roughly 95% of his posts are little more than insults.  I found it a far better experience to simply ignore him completely. 

 

As I said, occasionally when bored I have attempted to make a reasonable argument to a Tom post only to be met with his typical insults.  Gets old.  Truth be told, the 5% of his comments that may attempt to further a conversation are really not worth much either.  I'll take the risk that I may miss something worth reading.

Yes, Tom is a pompous prick. I have told him that many times. He also insults people who mostly deserve it. If you find it a "far better experience to simply ignore him completely" then why don't you? You're an idiot if you don't. See?

 

Here is something for you if you get bored:

[Bob in Mich]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, Tom is a pompous prick. I have told him that many times. He also insults people who mostly deserve it. If you find it a "far better experience to simply ignore him completely" then why don't you? You're an idiot if you don't. See?

 

Here is something for you if you get bored:

 

Ya know 3rd, if you aren't a bot you should become one.

[Nanker]

59 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Doc, I agree with your post.  That line does sort of sum up the state of affairs. 

 

What you may have missed is that pretty much that entire post of mine that you quoted was composed of insults that this poster, Westside, had thrown at me over the last page or so of this thread.  From my perspective anyway, he had come out of the blue telling me that I disgusted him and that I needed to stop posting here because he didn't like my views.  I didn't think that was very fair and thought I would use his own words against him to see if he thought that seemed reasonable.  I was hoping he might see the irony.

True. But you show up here on your high horse (pun intended) to lecture us and spew your brand of nonsense that is rarely if ever backed up by facts. Much of the “abuse” you and other droogs get is a parroting back to you of your own arguments - much like you did to Westside. But you have always missed the irony of our sarcasm. 

 

Logic and real facts are valued here. Feelings and emotionally-spawned beliefs... not so much. 

[3rdnlng]

31 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Ya know 3rd, if you aren't a bot you should become one.

In case the other one bores you:

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Watching his fall will be quite pleasant.

 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, Nanker said:

True. But you show up here on your high horse (pun intended) to lecture us and spew your brand of nonsense that is rarely if ever backed up by facts. Much of the “abuse” you and other droogs get is a parroting back to you of your own arguments - much like you did to Westside. But you have always missed the irony of our sarcasm. 

 

Logic and real facts are valued here. Feelings and emotionally-spawned beliefs... not so much. 

 

Ok Nanker, I will try.  I just showed up here?  I have been a member since 2001.  You have been involved in the "Know anyone with a Disease' medical cannabis thread which has been active for years.  So, I didn't just show up here.  And, just because I don't try to rebut every silly comment or insult doesn't mean I don't see the humor or sarcasm.  I find if I start getting into an insult battle, I don't enjoy the interaction intellectually as much as a legitimate idea exchange.  Though, I can insult back and forth if that is necessary and I am having fun.

 

Lectured you about what exactly?  Medical cannabis?  Yes, true, I have lectured about medical cannabis!  I have endured a steady stream of insults in order to try to help some folks that may have run out of current medical options.  I felt it may be helpful to try to inform folks that they may have another course with medical cannabis.  Obviously that knowledge was lacking here.  That thread began in 2014 and nearly  everything I proclaimed possible with medical cannabis has been coming true.  Sure, there aren't a lot of mainstream studies to link to but that is because the scientific community has been unable to do those studies.   I think you are aware of that fact.

 

This Trump and Russia thread, is that where I have been lecturing you?  Don't think I have been lecturing anyone.  I threw out some questions that I found troubling and I have been lobbying to many here that Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation should continue.  I have also repeatedly stated that if there are problems with the FISA application process, we should investigate and prosecute where appropriate.  That certainly isn't lecturing.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Watching his fall will be quite pleasant.

 

I don't say this lightly:  watching that man get the noose will be spiritually rewarding.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Guess not. 

 

If you have been here any length of time on PPP, you know that Tom is a pompous prick.  I don't know him 'in person' and no, he has never threatened me. 

He seems to feel compelled to post nearly every time I post anywhere, though not to engage in the discussion.  Roughly 95% of his posts are little more than insults.  I found it a far better experience to simply ignore him completely. 

 

As I said, occasionally when bored I have attempted to make a reasonable argument to a Tom post only to be met with his typical insults.  Gets old.  Truth be told, the 5% of his comments that may attempt to further a conversation are really not worth much either.  I'll take the risk that I may miss something worth reading.

 

You're an idiot. 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

If you have been here any length of time on PPP, you know that Tom is a pompous prick.  I don't know him 'in person' and no, he has never threatened me. 

He seems to feel compelled to post nearly every time I post anywhere, though not to engage in the discussion.  Roughly 95% of his posts are little more than insults.  I found it a far better experience to simply ignore him completely. 

 

As I said, occasionally when bored I have attempted to make a reasonable argument to a Tom post only to be met with his typical insults.  Gets old.  Truth be told, the 5% of his comments that may attempt to further a conversation are really not worth much either.  I'll take the risk that I may miss something worth reading.

According to my profile I"ve been here since 2003.  Longer than that actually before registering this name.  So yes, I've been here long enough to know that Tom comes across as a pompous prick

 

I've also been here long enough to know how to engage him in conversation and not take his insults to heart.

 

Tom loves to deconstruct flawed arguments and you've given him ample opportunity.  Ignoring him for doing so rather defeats the purpose of having a conversation.  You've attempted to make points here in the past that Tom has rebutted.  But since you have him on ignore you never see his remarks and thus never offer your own rebuttal.  In the end your posts comes across as a drive by and Tom comes out the winner

 

If you really want to get under Tom's skin, come here with your facts straight.  Accept that parts of your argument may have flaws.  And never base your arguments on emotion over logic.  Tom will still call you an idiot but it will be out of begrudgingly respect.

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

According to my profile I"ve been here since 2003.  Longer than that actually before registering this name.  So yes, I've been here long enough to know that Tom comes across as a pompous prick

 

I've also been here long enough to know how to engage him in conversation and not take his insults to heart.

 

Tom loves to deconstruct flawed arguments and you've given him ample opportunity.  Ignoring him for doing so rather defeats the purpose of having a conversation.  You've attempted to make points here in the past that Tom has rebutted.  But since you have him on ignore you never see his remarks and thus never offer your own rebuttal.  In the end your posts comes across as a drive by and Tom comes out the winner

 

If you really want to get under Tom's skin, come here with your facts straight.  Accept that parts of your argument may have flaws.  And never base your arguments on emotion over logic.  Tom will still call you an idiot but it will be out of begrudgingly respect.

 

Or...just don't come around her no more...

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Or...just don't come around her no more...

Freudian slip there my friend.  We all know you're a closet Tom Petty fan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Ok Nanker, I will try.  I just showed up here?  I have been a member since 2001.  You have been involved in the "Know anyone with a Disease' medical cannabis thread which has been active for years.  So, I didn't just show up here.  And, just because I don't try to rebut every silly comment or insult doesn't mean I don't see the humor or sarcasm.  I find if I start getting into an insult battle, I don't enjoy the interaction intellectually as much as a legitimate idea exchange.  Though, I can insult back and forth if that is necessary and I am having fun.

 

Lectured you about what exactly?  Medical cannabis?  Yes, true, I have lectured about medical cannabis!  I have endured a steady stream of insults in order to try to help some folks that may have run out of current medical options.  I felt it may be helpful to try to inform folks that they may have another course with medical cannabis.  Obviously that knowledge was lacking here.  That thread began in 2014 and nearly  everything I proclaimed possible with medical cannabis has been coming true.  Sure, there aren't a lot of mainstream studies to link to but that is because the scientific community has been unable to do those studies.   I think you are aware of that fact.

 

This Trump and Russia thread, is that where I have been lecturing you?  Don't think I have been lecturing anyone.  I threw out some questions that I found troubling and I have been lobbying to many here that Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation should continue.  I have also repeatedly stated that if there are problems with the FISA application process, we should investigate and prosecute where appropriate.  That certainly isn't lecturing.

 

 

I didn't say "just". 

You put me on "ignore" in your pot-promoting thread after I used the Westside gambit you deployed above. I infuriated you by telling you when Trump got into office the Republicans were going to make gun ownership mandatory and people would have a tax penalty if they didn't comply with the new law. The same kind of political gamesmanship thing that B O and his minions did when they had power and rammed the ACA down our throats. 

 

Most of the regulars here have been around a lot longer on this board and it's predecessors than 2001. 

[Bob in Mich]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

According to my profile I"ve been here since 2003.  Longer than that actually before registering this name.  So yes, I've been here long enough to know that Tom comes across as a pompous prick

 

I've also been here long enough to know how to engage him in conversation and not take his insults to heart.

 

Tom loves to deconstruct flawed arguments and you've given him ample opportunity.  Ignoring him for doing so rather defeats the purpose of having a conversation.  You've attempted to make points here in the past that Tom has rebutted.  But since you have him on ignore you never see his remarks and thus never offer your own rebuttal.  In the end your posts comes across as a drive by and Tom comes out the winner

 

If you really want to get under Tom's skin, come here with your facts straight.  Accept that parts of your argument may have flaws.  And never base your arguments on emotion over logic.  Tom will still call you an idiot but it will be out of begrudgingly respect.

 

Well, 3rd tells me I should ignore Tom always.  You say, I should not ignore Tom's comments.  I prefer my choice of leaving him on ignore and on rare occasions, taking a shot he has something to say. 

 

Your experiences with Tom may be far different than mine.  When I have read his comments he rarely had anything meaningful to add to the discussion.  We live and learn and I have learned that if engaged he will only resort to insults.  It is just like any 'friend' I suppose.  If you enjoy his company, great, spend time with him.  I don't enjoy his company.

 

If his (ignored) comment convinces you that he wins,  who gives a crap?  I will not waste time on Tom nor do I understand the obsession with winning these board discussions.  I truly could not care less about Tom's respect.  If that means something to you, then continue to weather his crap.  To me, it seems foolish to value the opinion of someone you feel is an idiot.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[/dev/null]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, 3rd tells me I should ignore Tom always.  You say, I should not ignore Tom's comments.  I prefer my choice of leaving him on ignore and on rare occasions, taking a shot he has something to say. 

 

Your experiences with Tom may be far different than mine.  When I have read his comments he rarely had anything meaningful to add to the discussion.  We live and learn and I have learned that if engaged he will only resort to insults.  It is just like any 'friend' I suppose.  If you enjoy his company, great, spend time with him.  I don't enjoy his company.

 

If his (ignored) comment convinces you that he wins,  who gives a crap?  I will not waste time on Tom nor do I understand the obsession with winning these board discussions.  I truly could not care less about Tom's respect.  If that means something to you, then continue to weather his crap.  To me, it seems foolish to value the opinion of someone you feel is an idiot.

 

Perhaps win wasn't the best choice of words.  You give him the last word and yield to somebody you consider a pompous prick

 

But coming to a political message board and blocking out other voices seems counterproductive to me.

[Warren Zevon]

[/dev/null]

18 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Quote

 

Without yet knowing the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion, we have only the public evidence to date. 

 

Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about what appears to have been a legal conversation he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

 

Two Trump associates, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, have been indictedby a grand jury for allegedly failing to report their lobbying work and avoiding paying taxes on its multimillion-dollar income. (It wasn’t Russia, it was Ukraine; and it was prior to their work on the Trump campaign, but close enough.)

 

In the absence of any public evidence implicating President Trump in illegal activities, much has been written about his and his associates’ “ties” to Russia, as if that is itself evidence of some sort of crime. 

 

One such article in Time is entitled, “Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia.” Three “many’s” obviously weren’t enough to convey the true depth of the “ties.” It took four.

 

It’s less easy to find comprehensive accounts denoting the Russian ties that some of Trump’s detractors have.

Here are just a few examples:

 

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/373363-democratic-ties-to-russia-are-ample-and-often-ethically-dubious#.WoDaMkKGg5d.twitter

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It’s less easy to find comprehensive accounts denoting the Russian ties that some of Trump’s detractors have.

Here are just a few examples:

 

 

It's not that difficult:

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/04/clintons-ties-to-russians-are-just-as-disturbing-as-trumps/

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356630-fbi-watched-then-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

[B-Man]

Hillary Clinton’s Fingerprints Are All Over The FBI’s Investigation Into Trump’s Russia Ties by Rachel Stoltzfoos

Original Article