Bigbrog

Thought I read Gilman was going to 61? Or was that just for set tournaments and he was going 55 for the trials?

On do you know you lost an argument without saying you lost an argument. Typical weak/close minded/illogical tactic when trying to debate something...can't back up what they wrote nor be able to articulate why they disagree with something so resort to name calling and saying..."Well you clearly don't understand anything". So predictable. Takeaway, neither of you can argue anything that mspart said, or me, other then keep repeating "INSERECTION!" "INSERECTION!" "INSERECTION!"...."TRAITORS!" "TRAITORS!" "TRAITORS!"

Love to hear @Plasmodium and/or @Mike Parrish thoughts on Charlie Kirk and why they feel the way they do. And I say that not knowing how they feel about him, but just based on what they post on here I assume they dislike him, but I may be wrong (not the first time). Anyway, I understand there are loud mouths out there that say crazy things, but Charlie Kirk is definitely not one of them. All of the interviews and clips I have seen about him, he is very smart, articulate, inclusive of all people and believes, and focuses on facts and data to make his opinions. He is also someone who is open to hearing other people's thoughts and opinions.

SMH...if you had any reading comprehension you would know that mspart's post was absolutely NOT "What-about-ism", nor was my post when I mentioned Hillary. His post was all about Jan 6th...read it...try and comprehend it...and then tell everyone how what he wrote was wrong. And funny you call it "What-about-ism" when he was referring to accusations YOU made! He was using that as a way to make a point about YOUR accusations about Jan 6th...which was what his post was all about...man, this isn't that hard! You clearly are the type of person that reads a headline on CNN and then says, "Yep, that is exactly what happened!", without actually reading the article or checking out the validity of it on other sources. Who's the slow one??

I so wanted to work from home today to have ESPN+ running all day while I "worked", but darn meetings I needed to be at took precedence.

So you can't tell us what mspart said was wrong...got it.

I never understood why people hate Charlie Kirk so bad?? I definitely wouldn't call him far right other than he feels very strongly about holding oneself accountable...maybe that is what the left hate so much?

So what part of what @mspart wrote was wrong @Mike Parrish and @Plasmodium?? In YOUR own words, no stupid biased news article...what part of what he said was wrong?? We'll wait for the "I told you already!" B.S....posting a stupid slanted partisan news article isn't proving what mspart wrote was wrong.

We need to ban all USA athletes from ever competing in the Olympics again and all the medals the athletes have won in the past 75 years need to be given back and their titles vacated. Those darn handful or so of athletes that tested positive for banned substances clearly shows the USA has been giving every single one of their athletes PED's for decades. DOWN TO THE USA!! DOWN TO THE USA!! Can't believe anyone lives in this terrible country!!

One of Trump's pet walkers, wore a blue shirt one day, and that same blue shirt was wore by any employee of Truth Social who killed a cockroach walking across the floor, and that cockroach had walked across a stack of money sitting in an investor's office, which got washed by the cleaning folks to get rid of any ick left by the cockroach; thus, there is money laundering happening and it's Trump's fault....HURRY! Run the article...we finally got that orange haired whack job. Queue a bunch of tight jean wearing 20-year-olds sitting around a conference room patting each other on their backs....

I'm getting dizzy with you moving the goal posts over, and over, and over again. So the definitions provided by you and Mikey of what the Jan 6 folks did isn't true?? I believe it was "insurrection"...you don't stand by those definitions any longer? Or is there a definition of that word for people that support the "D's" cause/issue, and a different definition for people that support "R's" cause/issues? You are a 100% disingenuous person! You just keep on regurgitating the ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and continue to be a hypocrite and so partisan that you can't think objectively or open mindedly about anything. And by the way, to point out yet another one of your ignorant claims of me being disingenuous....how is it disingenuous when you fail to comprehend any of the multiple times I said ALL of them (Jan 6th, rioters in Portland and all the other states, etc.) should be held accountable if they broke the law?? I'll wait for that explanation and for it to change every time you reply.

It looks like @bnwtwg should be tested, as I have never seen a quicker back pedal in my life...has to be juicin!

Based on Mikey's and your very definitions...put on this very thread....damn right it is! I am just playing by your rules here Pal. You are portraying your hypocrisy/disingenuousness all on your own.

I'm not drawing any line other then the line of you and your ilk pick and choose your manufactured outrage based on what media news channel you watch, all the while turning a blind eye to some of the exact same things happening elsewhere but by people that vote for the same letter as you do...it's called calling out your hypocrisy, disengenuousness, and quite frankly close mindedness. Did I mention illogical as well... By the way I have told you multiple times how I feel about Jan 6th AND all the other crap that went down in this country where police stations were being destroyed and occupied by rioters (insurrectionists), where businesses were being looted and burned by rioters (insurrectionists), etc.

How do you admit you are disingenuous without saying you are disingenuous? Love it! SMH....

Funny when you are losing an argument you turn to arguing about definitions and your defense is posting a bunch of different definitions for words...can't make this stuff up. Anyway, fine...using Mikey's and Plas' definitions, wouldn't a lot of the rioters who took over police headquarters and/or burned down businesses be considered "insurrections" by your very own definitions?? Weren't they an uprising that turned violent? Against the government? I am for full prosecution no matter what side you are on when there is violence and/or damaged property...but you have to be totally out of your mind and completely disingenuous and not even worth debating with if you think there has been equal prosecution.

I am not a religious nut and do not go to church or anything, but struggle with people who absolutely hate religion and blame it for a lot of ill wills that were committed by HUMAN BEINGS, not the religion. And if someone does something in the name of their religion, it isn't the religion's fault, it's the idiotic person doing it's fault. I have yet to see any of the majority/main religions say anything but be a good human being and treat others as you want to be treated. Are there things in religions that maybe are a little far one way (using political terms due to people turning it into that), sure, but people can be in support of treating everyone equally but disagree with people's lifestyle choices. I disagree with one of my best friend's lifestyle choice as he is an alcoholic, but he is a great person. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am not comparing alcohol addiction to say transgender, but making an overall observation...i.e., I couldn't care less if someone is a transgender or isn't, I will treat them based on who they are as a person and human being, does that mean I am all for getting transition surgery, heck no, but those two things are separate. Back to the point of the thread, it is scary when you are dealing with hundreds and thousands of years of culture and societal norms. And sometimes the old ways have really messed up viewpoints and I personally can't understand how people can't see you don't kill someone who disagrees with the government, or throw someone off a building because they like to sleep with someone of the same sex as them.

I literally laughed out loud....thanks @mspart

Exactly!

my point has been made...

Love the attitude..."Well, it's not widespread so it isn't really cheating". Who defines "widespread"? When does it become actual cheating? It's a clear case of selective outrage. Riot and burn down cities - meh...they are just exercising their civil rights. Storm the capital...lock them all up and throw away the key. @PlasmodiumAs for the "whataboutism" you claim, nice try at defecting and trying to steer the conversation away from your lies and total one-sided partisan view on most things - which has been the point of the back and forth, but you want to make it all about something it isn't. Nice try you rascally little devil!

So, after blatantly and knowingly lying, you finally agree that Hillary did in fact, and probably continues to do so, call into question the validity of her presidential loss? And seriously...I enjoy the back and forth, but you didn't actually just say this, and believe it, did you?? "I am objective."

SMH...thanks for proving my point...

Two second google search @Plasmodium...and this is from 2020 so what was that again that "she didn't have much time to do so"?? Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’ (yahoo.com)