XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 06:26:51 -0500, super70s says...

LOL... Liberal toddler hates it when I reply to just like a liberal.

Elizabeth Warren was NOT a part of THIS topic:

She wasn't, so it WAS off-topic. By your logic, you could have brought up ANY part of Trump's past to make a pointless point (WARREN was the joke, not Trump's attempt at one).

Why did you pick THAT part of his past? Because YOU were embarrassed by Warren, and you thought, that by making a big deal about Trump's attempt at humour, what Warren did would seem less egregious.

No. What she did was criminal, and the Native Americans hated HER for it, not trump, no matter HOW in-bad-taste it was for the occasion.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/c/S6yVjeF9a0c/m/FNBGC6PJAQAJ

But ohhhhh... that didn't stop TODDLER from going off-topic, like a good >>> liberal. I addressed what TODDLER said, so the following question was as stupid
to ask, as toddler is.

Did Elizabeth Warren have a damn thing to do with the reason those
Native Americans were there that day, blithering idiot? - super70s

What the fuck does THAT matter? YOU'RE the one who brought her up, OFF- >>> TOPICALLY, toddler.

It wasn't "off-topic" at all

At first I didn't think so, but after you attacked me for pointing out what kind of bullshit WARREN unleashed when she CRIMINALLY listed at Harvard, her heritage as Native American, then tried to "excuse" it by saying she was part Native American by simply being in some of their groups or committees, I HAD to go with it.

YOU just got pissy and whiny, because I pointed out Warren's bullshit. YOU brought her up... OWN IT.

Yes, it was. The topic was "Why The British Do Not Like Trump". And, it was laid out by SpermMan, why HE thought, wrongly I might add, Trump was disliked.
He never mentioned ANY event OR Warren.

The commentary...

... wasn't posted here. Only a couple of paragraphs.

on X was composed by a British writer named Nate White,
you shit-fer-brains, NOT Bradley Sherman.

Wow... you are one fucked in the head toddler. When you post something, even if it's written by someone else, you OWN it, if you agree with it.

If he wanted to simple relay what this bloke thought, he could have just posted the URL to Usenet, but no... he posted 2 paragraphs, and not the whole thing, because SpermMan thinks those exact thoughts.

If you posted "commentary", even someone else's, be prepared to defend said "commentary".

I don't give a shit if the Queen Mother had written it... SpermMan OWNED it after he posted it. What YOU added to it, is the topic now, so basically it WAS off-topic, since it DID change it.

From the commentary: "But with Trump, it?s a fact. He doesn?t even seem
to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment,
an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty."

First off, that's his OPINION... secondly, I read his whole diatribe, and came to the conclusion, that it's all sour grapes, just like you pansy-ass pussies exhibit.

Now, you're even worse, because, seeing what Biden's done to fuck up EVERYTHING, gas prices, inflation, putting us BACK into a war (don't be fooled... we're fighting Russia JUST as much as Ukraine), you're just skeered little children, ACTING like little children in your assessments of Trump, because you're afraid he'll win again.

Biden can't compare... Obama didn't do anything NEAR what Trump accomplished, before the Chinese and Democrats colluded to infect the world with Covid and close down economies all over the world.

OK.. the collusion part is just me playing at it, but Trump had this country's economy booming, and Democrats can't HAVE that. Democrats NEED the economy to tank so they can swoop in and give out free shit to their dregs of society voters, to keep them voting Democrat.

They also want to look like heroes in the economy realm, after THEY'VE sunk it.

"Look... we saved the economy! Jobs are coming back..."

Yeah, after THEY fucked it up and caused everyone to go on Welfare, which IS what the Democrats want.

(continued in part 2)

========================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)