quote:
And your only reason for doing that was because you thought Percy might not be capable of doing it, or wouldn't think of doing it. Then when he said "I was gonna say that!!" you and him can then have a slap-on-the-back fest. Fun for you I guess, but doesn't appeal to me much personally.
My reason for doing it is that I checked your “evidence” and found it to contradict your assertions. Your invention has no basis in fact. Indeed the check is quite easy - you could have done it. And certainly Percy could.
quote:
I don't see how a "barrage of assertions" is a problem for a barrage of posters, a barrage of anger etc. But you're probably right, not comparable. (but the reverse of your opinion of which is more severe)
It is interesting that you see a victory for falsehood as the preferable state. But entirely consistent with your behaviour.
quote:
One of my several opponents (let's see....it was Percy) made a big deal of the number of trips Hunter took. From Message 183 -what I said there, to a message he didn't respond to.
Yet you didn’t follow up by dropping the claim. Indeed the real point was that you were insufficiently sceptical of an implausible claim. A point you have gone on to prove.
quote:
What evidence did I falsely claim to have?
The Judicial Watch report of course.
quote:
Do you, like the others, believe that the number of trips and their destination were a big part of my argument?
Nobody seems to think that, although you’ve certainly given it more attention than you say it deserves.
quote:
You, like all of them, missed my earlier paragraph that I re-quoted above? You, like the others, believe that I KNEW that not all of those 411 trips were with his father, that I thought if they were within the U.S. or without his father that they were irrelevant?
Apparently you missed the place in my post where I point out that you repeatedly returned to the claim. And indeed it is hardly likely that all of those trips are relevant at all. And if you knew that the 411 trips were mostly within the US and if you knew that there was no information on whether his father was with him or not would you really have written
Message 203 or
Message 205 ?
quote:
You made good points, I made a small mistake by saying they were all on Air Force 2, but it would have been a much bigger mistake if trips within the U.S., or trips without his father, automatically are always without suspicion, but they're not.
The idea that all trips should automatically be considered “suspicious” is far worse. And that’s what you’re pushing.
quote:
Does the fact that they weren't all trips with his father make you believe, like the rest of gang, that it's now clear that the mainstream media is entirely balanced in how they treat all presidential children? Here's a hint, much / most of the attacks against Trump's children were for when they were not with him, and were due to their activities that were confined within the U.S. border.
I think that Trump’s open nepotism goes far beyond anything that has been shown for Biden - and that is a relevant factor. Hunter Biden has not been given a cabinet position, for instance. And that is a relevant factor.
quote:
Two people responding yes, but how many more reading, and gathering up rage for future posts? Hard to keep count of such things when dealing with gang gallop.
And yet another ridiculous attempt to blame others. You weren’t “dealing with a gang gallop”. And you don’t have to deal with readers who aren’t responding. If you’re worried about “rage” maybe you could ease up on the nastiness, the dishonesty and the false accusations.
quote:
It was the strongest point my opponents were making!
If that was true it only makes your behaviour even more foolish. Why not drop a weak point if you have better ones? Why draw attention to it by writing two posts claiming to have the evidence - when you haven’t even looked at the supposed evidence ?
quote:
They don't? My elderly dad rode with me over a hundred times in the last 8 years of his life, mainly because his eyesight was failing too badly for him to be able to drive.
Again, hardly a comparable situation. And likely these, too, would have been mostly local trips.
quote:
It makes sense if they were involved in business deals in China and the Ukraine, with "big guy" Joe's political clout being involved.
No, the comparison still does not make sense. Nor does it make sense that the Vice President would make hundreds of trips to those two countries without it attracting wide attention.
quote:
Judicial Watch supported the "hundreds of trips" claim, that's all I was referring to
“Hunter Biden made hundreds of trips” is hardly a damning claim worth supporting. Further in
Message 203 you were answering the assertion:
"Children" riding in cars with their dads "hundreds of times" does not translate to the Vice President's son flying to foreign countries hundreds of times with his father.
That Hunter Biden made “hundreds of trips” which were not even “flying to foreign countries” is not an answer to that point at all.
And in
Message 205 you were expressly defending the Fox claim of hundreds of flights. I hardly think that you meant to indicate that Fox News were incompetents who seriously misrepresented Judicial Watch.
So no, this is just another dishonest excuse. You were claiming hundreds of flights, not just hundreds of trips.
quote:
"411 trips" - Judicial Watch. "traveled with his father, AND got secret service protection on hundreds of trips" - the Fox News chic. Where's the contradiction? The Fox news chic didn't lie, though she was being tricky. She's a commentator, not a reporter. Do you believe that Trump haters who masquerade as reporters, like Jim Acosta and Johathan Karl (to name only 2 of hundreds) don't get just a little tricky in some of their reporting?
So your defence of Fox News is that you badly misrepresented their claim. Because in
Message 205 you indicate that Fox asserted 400 international flights. Not 400 trips of which only a small proportion (~15%) were international flights.
quote:
You're probably right, I guess I tend to do that because most of the points I make go un-responded to, by ANY gang member. See Message 183, and Message 204 as two examples.
I rather doubt that. Why waste time on a weak point - and embarrass yourself badly doing it - when you have stronger points? Indeed the number of responses is due to it being rather obviously implausible and the up fact that you made it despite that (and your uncritical acceptance of the Fox News claim - which you now say that didn’t even make!)
quote:
All I'd like to do, is get to a point where we can agree to disagree. So before I go, so I'm clear, you agree with the others that since I made a mistake about the destinations of Hunter's trips, that I LIED
I wouldn’t use that as an example of you lying. However it is certainly true that you made a false claim, tried to prop it up with a ridiculous analogy and when you claimed to have the evidence the actual evidence refuted the claim.
quote:
and because of that, my entire point is void, and that's proof that the mainstream media is perfectly balanced in how they cover / covered Trumps children versus how they treat Hunter Biden?
It is certainly a reason not to trust your unsupported assertions. As if we need another one. There have been rather a lot of examples.
™ Version 4.2
