If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

More like glass of weak tea calling the kettle black, buddy. Democrats and the mainstream media at it's worst aren't 1/10 the liars their far right extremist counterparts are.

Whataboutism based on pure lies and exaggerations by a repeatedly convicted con man and liar, the man you said has carte Blanche to lie whenever he pleases because only a moron tells the truth if it might hurt him, especially under oath.
🤦‍♂️

Even if that were true, which it is absolutely not, the media is comprised of tens of millions of people worldwide.
Giving you the benefit of pretending to accept your lie, that makes Trump, all on his little lonesome, as big a liar as tens of millions of people you call monstrous liars combined.

Still unbelievably full of shit and incapable of honesty.

Lol....nationalreview, as a source?!? Too funny, Bob. About as biased as they come. If they applied the same standards to any trump speech it wouldn't say he lies repeatedly, it would say he lies constantly when he's even coherent....but they don't apply the same standards, do they. I bet they repeat Trump's new brother lie, another blatantly false and undeniably racist attack on a politician of color. He can't help himself. What a turd you gleefully follow into the sewer.

For a 9 month employment, getting the start year and end year wrong by one year each, and not mentioning the true start date was late December, that's a pretty big lie to start with.

I've heard nothing of this alleged Larry King call....link? No recording, or any details that don't match her first iteration of this constantly morphing story? ...don't bother mentioning it or it just sounds like desperation.

Um....1) Ford had written contemporaneous notes about her attack.
2) Ford's FIRST HAND WITNESSES, not people she told a story years later, were mostly NOT HEARD, AND WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Yes, the double standard is quite conspicuous....but it's the Right's blatant double standard.

One likely attack with a credible professional accuser, multiple first hand witnesses unheard and contemporary evidence is ignored and denied even a full hearing, and one changing accusation of a totally unbelievable public attack in the halls of congress made by a non credible accuser with no witnesses, no evidence, and who never brought up her attack before even though her attacker has had constant elections for high office including VP twice...even when she was part of a group making other public accusations against the same man, her accusations are to be believed?!

You really have some nerve implying the double standard comes from the Left here. Such bullshit.

MAYBE she exaggerates?!? There's no MAYBE about it. Everything about her claims scream political lie from a proven liar. I can't fathom why anyone ever listened to her unbelievable story except out of desperation, needing so badly to have a Biden abuse story to counter Trump's decades long history of real abuses, both on tape and bragged about in multiple interviews like forcing his way into dressing rooms at his beauty pageants to ogle underage girls as they dress, trying hard to Fuck his friend's wives while he's married, forcibly finger banging any woman he finds attractive, all the way to multiple rape cases in court now.

I meant the start and stop year are each off by 1.

Circumstantially it looks like maybe her mom called Larry King Live to ask for guidance way back in 1993 (the content of the exchange matches, as does the date, but no names were given). Could be unrelated.
Supposedly neighbors were told. Again, who knows.

If zero corroboration was good enough for Ford (Named first hand witnesses said they remember nothing of the sort), then maybe it's only fair to give Reade the same benefit of the doubt?
The double standard is quite conspicuous.

Personally, I wouldn't condemn anyone without physical measurable evidence on which to decide. Talk is cheap.

Maybe she does exaggerate. She wouldn't be the first.

-scheherazade

Legislative aide - Coordinate and attend meetings. Assist with the drafting of speeches, press releases and legislation. Conduct and summarize legal research, research studies and constituent surveys.
Her position - mail clerk and supervising interns.
Nowhere near the same thing. Like the receptionist putting "VP of communications and publications" as their title.


91-94 is up to 4 years, she worked for him for 9 months. That's a 3.25 year exaggeration, not one, which would itself be more than doubling the truth.

Um...you think?! Yes, it's bad when your college says you didn't graduate, and a lie when you say you did. I don't think her cases would all be under review over a database problem.

Her current accusations ARE brand new, never coming to light in 30 years of Biden running for offices, including VP. They absolutely did totally pop up out of nowhere at a suspiciously convenient time in politics....and are bat shit crazy, forcefully fingered in a public alcove in the public halls of congress. Get real.

Edit: the long and short is she's not credible, at best she's shown a willingness to hyper exaggerate if it benefits her, more likely she's a bold faced liar who may have been paid to make accusations.

Some of the link's criticisms are nitpicking.

Calling herself a 'legislative aide' to describe 'working for senator Biden' - that's like when a 'receptionist' puts down 'customer communications liaison' on their resume.

She gets her years of employment wrong by 1 year, decades later. I can't tell you the year I started my current job. I would have to look it up. Same for every job I've had.

Having one of her supposed degrees denied by a university is certainly suspect. Which at this point could still turn out to be a database problem, or some other cock up. *Possibly*. *Possibly not*. It could also be her exaggerating her own qualifications, coming back to bite her in the ass.

In any case, at least her accusations are old and she didn't pop up out of nowhere at a suspiciously convenient time in politics.

-scheherazade

Part 1: the video portrays mocking. If they're going to mock someone, they should at least get their numbers right, otherwise they're no better than Trump and his continual exaggerations (e.g. it's like them saying "and it was the least steepest ramp in the world, and I've walked all the ramps of the world, more than anyone else").

Part 2: if they're trying to be funny by comparing two things then you have to, you know, compare the two things. So where is the video of Biden coming down the ramp? I want to see Biden cartwheel down the ramp like a champ.

Part 3: "I can 100% expect Trump, if he ever sees the clip, to respond exactly as your comment did", except for the fact that Trump already described this event (walking down the ramp) in this video. So you better check your 100%.

BTW, there is no dilemma - no sarcasm was implied or could be interpreted from my comment, and there is a little sarcasm check box that remained unchecked (just to be sure). On the other hand, I fully expected someone to try to diminish my comment, because facts always get in the way of a good story.

I found it astonishing to learn that the depiction from HBO's Watchmen was, if anything, sugar coated and not an exaggeration at all.

I keep hearing this called an "apology"....did ANYONE hear the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize"?
This was an admission of a mistake, distinctly different from an apology. Still good, but let's not exaggerate what's happened here.

My mid twenties year old self really enjoyed the original, but I can't be the only one that thinks this trailer looks really bad. Not any funny in the entire trailer...imo.

(edit) i think in the original, Bill and Ted were exaggerations of a group of young people who actually spoke and acted like that. Today you would be hard pressed to find anyone acting like that, especially at the age they are portraying.

You save all your empathy for right wing fools who push lies and the fools who accept it as gospel, right?

Truth?!? LMFAHS! These blatantly racist fake figures, which you misquoted from Trump tweeting some long ago debunked unofficial propaganda, are just wrong and earned him one of thousands of "pants on fire" awards.
*facepalm
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

The sad part being the honest numbers were bad enough to make the point, so why exaggerate? Probably because Bunker Boy just can't let any truth pass his lips, and you can't help but exaggerate on top of his outright lies.

Every time, buddy. You only reference already debunked, clearly fake statistics. Statistics that always contradict the official numbers. Is it because you're only looking where Twitler tells you to? Just throwing a handful of conspiracy word magnets at a fridge would have you accidentally right more often than you are. I can't believe that's not on purpose....but I can't discern what purpose it might serve.

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

What nonsense. No media outside Iran is glorifying him, they're denouncing his assassination.

Where is her outrage for the tens-hundreds of thousands we killed in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc?

People in Iran are happy, they're giving out cookies in the street....do we not know that people in Iran are not free, that they're tortured for disagreeing with the government...they're so happy.....oh yeah, and they all love Trump. *facepalm

Sounds like a female Bob....lies, exaggeration, self contradiction, complete blindness to and disbelief of massive opposition, and a nice pat on the back for idiot Trump for making international assassination of world leaders and anyone near them acceptable again. Turnabout is fair play, Trump.

Does anyone else remember, when the Christmas decoration in national lampoon's Christmas vacation were an exaggeration..?

Lol. Did I do that?

@HerbWatson said:
You've clearly got a lot to unload, I hope 2020 is a better year for you. You've got issues pal,

I'm sorry you feel my explanation is an attempt to argue. At least I didn't directly attribute those issues to you or otherwise personally insult you except for the fast and loose with facts bit, which I stand by....you can't say the same.

Maybe be correct instead of hyperbolic and exaggerating, and not disrespectfully snarky and passive aggressive when challenged and you'll have more pleasant discussions.

The miniscule amount of milk I drink means water use isn't my concern....but it is in a general big picture sense, especially if we all switch to non dairy milk as you suggested.

Have a Festive Festivus and a better 2020. Bye.