DUMB IT DOWN-IMPEACHMENT

[Bob D + 562]

9 minutes ago, Papillon said:

But what is the point in it sir?

And Mr Warnick you have rather confused me. Therefore I must be a robot too presumably? Sorry if I have bored you to tears but not enough to not respond sir? I still maintain that it is rather odd for you all to converse with him everyday if you believe this, is it not? 

I did not respond to IT Papillon.  IT decided to contradict me.  No information.  Just "is not"  "you don't understand"   Blah Blah Blah Blah BOT!

I gave this post of yours a Trophy for a great post only because you wrote your shortest post ever .... thankfully.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Papillon said:

But what is the point in it sir?

And Mr Warnick you have rather confused me. Therefore I must be a robot too presumably? Sorry if I have bored you to tears but not enough to not respond sir? 

Ah, it's 5 o'clock in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet.  A little word play.  The argument about argument has gotten a bit nonsensical, that's all.

[Bob D + 562]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

The argument about argument has gotten a bit nonsensical, that's all.

Has Not!

[Bob D + 562]

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

As @Papillon pointed out it is incumbent on you to offer a defense of your stance and you have not whereas your post of the Treaty inter alia provided the basis for Biden to condition massive funding to the Ukraine under the former administration and this significantly related to removing a key figure ostensibly fighting corruption but instead doing the very opposite.

Did not!   Couldn't help myself.  Good night!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Has Not!

Has to!  And I'm going to tell the teacher!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Bob D said:

Did not!   Couldn't help myself.  Good night!

Sure, call it a night.  Don't have a proper response, do you?  Or do you?  Well?

[Papillon + 485]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

Ah, it's 5 o'clock in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet.  A little word play.  The argument about argument has gotten a bit nonsensical, that's all.

I see sir, fair enough. I am not arguing about argument, I am merely questioning why any opposing view is considered a bot, as I fear I will be next. I am not in my ''4 or 5 paragraphs'' merely talking about this certain user and with respect if you had the coffee first you would have known this ...   /sarc

17 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

One can only surmise that one doesn't have the mental faculties to effectively challenge one's bot accusers.  Or that one has bored his accusers to tears and they simply give up.

Not quite sure of the need for this insult sir. I could also ''surmise'' that you had no argument for anything I said it appears, and merely attacked my stance, despite not reading it properly, rather proving my point about opposing views or even daring to question the mighty users of an oil forum ...   /sarc    .... Get that coffee down you sir   

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

Has to!  And I'm going to tell the teacher!

Grasshopper?

[rossh + 18]

On 12/16/2019 at 2:47 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Title of this thread is Dumb It Down - Impeachment

<snip>

Without a crime, there cannot be an impeachment.

 

The Democrats are submitting 2 vague charges of:

● "abuse of power"

● "obstruction of Congress"

 

 

 

I have to wonder what more underhanded and slimy trickery the Dems have planned?    When the current charges goes to the senate for a vote, it will loose regardless.   So I'm thinking there is a 2nd act to follow here with more despicable tricks to come.   Surely the Dems did not make all this fuss, in the hope of carrying any weight to the TV talking points for 10 more months?  They got to be smarter than that?

Maybe they hope to get some more testimony from a senate trial, and then start again with a new charge like the quid pro quo, and just keep re-launching the whole saga over and over?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/16/2019 at 5:58 AM, DayTrader said:

I hear you Rob but I can't help feeling stuff like horrific events in Iran or China or SA doesn't personally ''affect anyone here in any way'' either, but people still care, or should, or are certainly very opinionated about them considering it doesn't affect them. At the same time though, the EU? It is pretty boring, it's just that you and Rasmus have an unhealthy obsession with it. 

Worth watching https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/

[Papillon + 485]

23 minutes ago, Bob D said:

I gave this post of yours a Trophy for a great post only because you wrote your shortest post ever .... thankfully.

Sorry sir, I appreciate that detail can be confusing to some, or somewhat annoying when they don't like reading facts. This is why you didn't reply to any of my post either. I guess I should be grateful you didn't accuse me of being a bot though, as that is the standard ''I have no reply to that and you are utterly correct'' response here, as you have proved several times. Have another try sir. See if you can refute any of my observations rather than criticise the length of the post. The lack of reply to any of it already tells me all I need to know anyway.

2 hours ago, remake it said:

You seem not to understand that the Treaty framework provided a legitimate basis for investigating corruption and the President's actions were outside of this.

Damn, I have no answer to this ... I think I will write ''bot'' and run away. Welcome to certain users' logic. 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Papillon

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

9 minutes ago, remake it said:

Grasshopper?

Yes, Master?

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Yes, Master?

13 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Has to too !  And I'm going to tell the teacher!

 

Have to correct you too!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Sorry sir, I appreciate that detail can be confusing to some, or somewhat annoying when they don't like reading facts. I guess I should be grateful you didn't accuse me of being a bot though, as that is the standard ''I have no reply to that'' response as you have proved several times. 

Hmm, now where did I see words almost identical to these before.  Oh, I know!  You keep repeating them.  Do you have anything else you want to talk about?  Seriously, this horse is well and truly dead.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

Have to correct you too!

Yes, Master.  I did have an internal debate about which form of the word to use.  Bad elements in the valley must have led me astray.

[Marcin + 519]

@Bob D Thank You very much for reminding me of one of my favorite Monty Python sketches!

[Papillon + 485]

23 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hmm, now where did I see words almost identical to these before.  Oh, I know!  You keep repeating them.  Do you have anything else you want to talk about?  Seriously, this horse is well and truly dead.

Well considering they never seem to receive a decent reply sir it surely proves my point does it not? Maybe if you could construct an argument in response rather than merely attack all opposing views here then the issue would be resolved? The fact that you wish to change topic even proves my point about opposing views. You cannot argue any of my post about how people are treated? You cannot argue about bot accusations? You cannot admit differing views are instantly attacked? 

What is also notable is that you do not seem to get bored of the repeating of the bot accusations from people? You don't suggest to these people about talking of something else? I understand though that my view is different, and so you wish to change the subject or attack? Why is that sir do you think? May I suggest a certain hypocrisy and a proof of every word I said? Also it is notable you quoted my line of ''I have no argument to that'' and proved it within seconds, so thank you.

What's ''dead'' is your ''argument'', if it ever lived. I thought this was a forum rather than EchoChamber.com.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Papillon said:

What's dead is your ''argument'', if it ever lived.

Dear poster children while this is the "dumb-it-down " thread and even if your written testimony is mere hearsay - carefully overlooking any facts - you will nevertheless be impeached before being disimpeached according to the constitution (and all protestations from Mr Kirkland that this word salad which has not been easy on the eyes confirms a severe case of botulism).

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

14 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Well considering they never seem to receive a decent reply sir it surely proves my point does it not? Maybe if you could construct an argument in response rather than merely attack all opposing views here then the issue would be resolved? The fact that you wish to change topic even proves my point about opposing views. You cannot argue any of my post about how people are treated? You cannot argue about bot accusations? You cannot admit differing views are instantly attacked? 

What's dead is your ''argument'', if it ever lived. I thought this was a forum rather than EchoChamber.com.

I came on here this morning and thought I'd catch up and see what the discussions were about.  Here on the topic "dumb it down impeachment" the only discussion is about how people are discussing.  Get it?  Move on.  Talk about the topic.  What was the question or answer that set you off?  No, not the one where somebody called you a name and you got butt-hurt; the topic.  It is possible that no-one had a response for your last comment, other than your antagonizer, but that's the way it is sometimes.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

33 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Has to!  And I'm going to tell the teacher!

My best belly laugh in quite a while.

[Papillon + 485]

4 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Here on the topic "dumb it down impeachment" the only discussion is about how people are discussing.

Yes most threads here stay entirely on topic sir. You're right, of course, forgive me. A quick check of the threads here proves that without a doubt. Your own posts just a few minutes ago with regard to proper English are of course entirely fine and connected to impeachment a great deal. How foolish of me. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

Just now, Papillon said:

Yes most threads here stay entirely on topic sir. You're right, of course, forgive me. A quick check of the threads here proves that without a doubt. Your own posts just a few minutes ago with regard to proper English are of course entirely fine and connected to impeachment a great deal. How foolish of me. 

At this stage @Rasmus Jorgensen would be calling for a truce but fear not as you are welcome to break it in the various China versus USA threads thereby allowing liberal change of topic.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

Dear poster children while this is the "dumb-it-down " thread and even if your written testimony is mere hearsay - carefully overlooking any facts - you will nevertheless be impeached before being disimpeached according to the constitution (and all protestations from Mr Kirkland that this word salad which has not been easy on the eyes confirms a severe case of botulism).

Don't attack the children.  Wait for it....

[Papillon + 485]

33 minutes ago, remake it said:

even if your written testimony is mere hearsay - carefully overlooking any facts

This is limited to this thread is it sir? 

22 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Don't attack the children.

There is a thread about this sir. It is yet another where people had no argument and so ignored posts. This seems a running theme here? But I appreciate your little quip about attacking children. Only in this day and age could we say your sentence above in a sarcastic sense. How tragic that is and rather telling of certain mentalities here.  

Edited December 17, 2019 by Papillon

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Bob D said:

Marcin ... please do try to think.  I posted a link, inserted the 1999 Letter of Transmittal from Clinton and a rationale for disputing what GKAM44 posted.  I made an effort to provide information.  The BOT writes back "You don't seem to understand" and then you jump on me.  

Get a clue Marcin.  The Bot is designed to argue.  Not debate.  To argue.  I will not argue with IT.  And I didn't.

You don't face off against the BOT because you're politically aligned with it.   The Chinese propaganda machine and you are like peas in a pod.  Think about that! 

And your comment WAS aimed at me so give it a rest.

Arguing with the BOT is similar to the Monty Python Argument sketch!  You and your BOT buddy are John Cleese.  I will not be Graham Chapman.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=department+of+arguments+monty+python&view=detail&mid=5FD913EC49F1515FE88B5FD913EC49F1515FE88B&FORM=VIRE

I know that you made an effort and attached the information.

Remake it was just teasing with you. He suggested that treaty of legal co-operation with Ukraine actually gave procedural channels to address the issue of Biden Family corruption. But unfortunately Trump acted in impulsive "Trump way", and addressed the issue directly with Ukrainian President. So your information actually made impreachment case more sound.

So argument made by remake it was valid.

My experience with remake it is that you need to be cautious and stop discussing with him when he becames too agressive. This user agressively is trying to argue with you, just like Cleese in the sketch. At this moment I just stop answering and ignore him. Often remake it arguments are valid but presented in annoying, aggresive manner. But I think that calling anyone 'bot' is not right, it is similar to 'you are stupid', 'you are not worth talking to'. In my opinion name calling like 'bot' tells more about the person that is using the term than the recipient.