How quickly the Democrats forget! Or are they outright being dishonest? - Page 5
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: How quickly the Democrats forget! Or are they outright being dishonest?

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    4,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    In red......……..
    Since I cn't copy your red part, this is in reply to your post #40. Since the PM was Dec. 5 and I cna't go back farther than Dec 1 to search my posts, I have no idea what posts you now refer. First you say you deleted it then you say it is still there. I can no longer find my post that was a reply to your post but it did contain a referenct to more than 1 wife and speculated on more than 2. If you "deleted" it, it can't be there. Maybe you mean hyou replaced it or you are not even refering to the original post.

    It is easy to remember how many wives I have had...ONE. It is much more difficult to know how many relevent posts you made, how many you deleted and how many you may have replaced.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    Oh I read hyour post correctly!! No you didn't. try rereading my first 2 sentences and my last sentence You do know that it claimed that "THE LAW REQUIRED" that the gang of 8 br informed, don't you???Yes I know what it said I question was to whether you agreed with this statement or not.You didn't ask any question; you just demanded that I do your research and educate you. Reread me last sentence It does appear that you do in fact AGREE with it and that caused me to ask the question. You then that "PROTOCOL" requires it, which I also question. Assume all you want. I have not taken a stance yet. Reread my second sentence

    Now if you want to state that you do not believe anything in the article you quote, I CAN UNDERSSTAND you quoting it.I did not quote an article. I merely quoted a small portion of the article Again I have not taken a stance on any part of the article. Reread my second sentence

    I gave you a very CLEAR example of a situation that does have protocol but no requirement other than integrity and that was the request of a "PRIVATE MEETING" something I have learned to honor. Let it never be said that given your casual interpretation of a "private meeting", that I will ever choose such a meeting with youYes, I am quite aware that you AGAIN tried to divert the subject to a completely unrelated bizzare rant. I briefly followed you down that diversionary rabbit hole to merely point out your hypocrisy in being offended that Nancy discussed what the meeting was about, but ignored that Trump does too

    You then go off the deep end about "chinese women" on the White House grounds. WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT??? This shows your lack of reading comprehension. Nowhere did I talk about the White House. This occurred at Trumps resort in S Florida. Where reports are that the Stable Genius didn't bother to inform Congressional leaders; but was blathering out to guests and other people in the resort about the TOP SECRET CLASSIFIED mission to assassinate the Iranian general. Once again I will let you try to educate yourself as to the chinese womens relevance. Maybe Buzz can help you out

    I once sked hou a simple question. "Who would yo vote for right now?" You could not answer even that simple question Once again Cary you try to divert to a completely unrelated issue. And you just accused me of going off the deep end!!! Call it a simple question if you want, but it is actually a STUPID question. Stupid because you asked me to tell you who I would vote for at a time when there was no election being held for over a year and there was no way of knowing who all would be running and who would be the eventual candidates. Even saddre is that you yourself admit that on the last actual election day you didn't even vote!!!! UNBELIEVABLE You evidently cannot even understand the simplest question, a three word sentence; "Trump softened platform". Once again that is not a question. It is refreshing to see you finally admit the platform was softened

    Grow up!How mature of you
    In red
    You have had some doozies when it comes to fair and logical discussion.
    My all time favorite was probably you try to defend something that occurred by claiming earlier this year that the Trump Administration hadn't started yet.
    I may have a new favorite after seeing the latest gem in response to MGD claiming you were wrong by accusing him of saying you may have been married 4 times
    ...
    That is one hell of a defense for deleting a post as opposed to simply saying that you were wrong. If you were willing to mention #2 and #3, one can assume you may as well mention #4.
    \
    Again, why not simply say that hyou were wrong and at least show some creditibility?

    By the way, I went back to look for the post because I thought my response might be interpreted as a criticism of my former wife which is the fartherest from the truth.







  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Hey Fellas, I thought we were discussing the merits of this topic, How quickly the Democrats forget! Or are they outright being dishonest?

    Who gives a rats ass how many times someone has been married. Let's try to stay on topic which is politics and NOT someones personal life!!!!!
    ROCK CHALK

    What is Faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead. ​HEBREWS 11:1

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #44
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    3,942

    Default

    Reginald...I agree with your observation and comments! Many of our 'Liberal' leaning individuals who post on this website, use a number of typical Liberal tactics when posting! As you noted above, deflection and changing the subject, is one common tactic!

    Another one, used frequently by some, is to ridicule others you disagree with! This tactic is mentioned in Rules for Radicals, written by Saul Alinsky. It states that, "Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon"...

    That being said, I find it difficult to suggest any of our Liberal leaning members, specifically knows these tactics and uses them when commenting.

    For me to consider this possibility it would require that I consider some of our Liberals to be fairly well versed. Based on their frequent lack of support for comments they make and positions they take, suggests they have a limited understanding of formal tactics!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •