carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:29:33 GMT -5
A quote that doesn't in any way prove that Kavanaugh thought or said it was "his seat" and that "he deserved it". He sure acted like he deserved that seat, and implied he did. Your inference isn't his implication. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 31, 2019 16:33:05 GMT -5
Garland wasn't acting like a manchild, nor did he ever claim it was his seat. I'm going to need a citation that proves Garland didn't ever act like a manchild. Actually, that's not how it works. You don't prove a negative. You prove a positive. Good try though, maybe someday you'll understand basic logic. He sure acted like he deserved that seat, and implied he did. Your inference isn't his implication. His implication is this is a hit job stopping him from getting his seat. I get you can't criticize a republican, especially a trump supported one, but cmon. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:34:08 GMT -5
So, which part of that epically long video proves what you stated, or did you just post the first video clip you found? |
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 31, 2019 16:35:52 GMT -5
Garland wasn't acting like a manchild, nor did he ever claim it was his seat. I'm going to need a citation that proves Garland didn't ever act like a manchild. Since we are sinking to middle school level debate team bullshittery here, I'm going to have to remind you that asking your opponent to prove a negative is against the rules. Since you are putting forth the claim that Garland has acted like a manchild, the onus is on you to prove that he has. The man has been on the public record for decades, I'm sure there is something out there for you to dredge up. |
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Jul 31, 2019 16:36:19 GMT -5
So, which part of that epically long video proves what you stated, or did you just post the first video clip you found? The entirety of that epically long videos proves what I stated because what I stated is based on the entire epically long hearing. I think this is the third time I’ve explained that to you. Edit: I also posted this specific video because it is the Congressional record of the exact hearing that I am basing my opinion on. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:38:38 GMT -5
I'm going to need a citation that proves Garland didn't ever act like a manchild. Actually, that's not how it works. You don't prove a negative. You prove a positive. Good try though, maybe someday you'll understand basic logic. Odd, you tried to get me to prove that immigration officials weren't ignoring protocols. That's trying to prove a negative as well. Guess you failed at logic too. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 31, 2019 16:39:26 GMT -5
Weren't people here referring to it as "Merrick Garland's seat" or "his seat" on past pages? Can we agree that “not having a seat in the supreme court” does imply that your life has been ruined, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 31, 2019 16:40:57 GMT -5
Actually, that's not how it works. You don't prove a negative. You prove a positive. Good try though, maybe someday you'll understand basic logic. Odd, you tried to get me to prove that immigration officials weren't ignoring protocols. That's trying to prove a negative as well. Guess you failed at logic too. More like I was trying to get you to prove the evidence that they have been ignoring protocol and rights are false or wrong. Or, in another way to put it, that they have been following protocol. Something you failed to do. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:41:43 GMT -5
I'm going to need a citation that proves Garland didn't ever act like a manchild. Since we are sinking to middle school level debate team bullshittery here, I'm going to have to remind you that asking your opponent to prove a negative is against the rules. Since you are putting forth the claim that Garland has acted like a manchild, the onus is on you to prove that he has. The man has been on the public record for decades, I'm sure there is something out there for you to dredge up. I never made a claim Garland had acted like a manchild. If I made no claim, I have no onus to do anything. Let's just face it guys, you willingly look the other way when bullshit arguments and stawmanning align with your own opinions. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:42:40 GMT -5
Weren't people here referring to it as "Merrick Garland's seat" or "his seat" on past pages? Can we agree that “not having a seat in the supreme court” does imply that your life has been ruined, right? That was never stated. Kavanaugh said that the hit-job on his reputation and career was ruining his life. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 31, 2019 16:44:02 GMT -5
You probably don't want your nominee for the highest court of a country to have a conspiratorial bitch fit and end it on a "vengeance will be mine" note.
|
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Jul 31, 2019 16:44:08 GMT -5
To summarize today’s interaction: You: Do you have a clip? Me: No, because it’s based on how he acted during the entire hearing. You: So you don’t have a clip? Me: No, because it’s based on how he acted during the entire hearing, but here is the hearing. What part of that hearing is your clip? Me: No, because it’s based on the entire hearing...  |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:44:48 GMT -5
Odd, you tried to get me to prove that immigration officials weren't ignoring protocols. That's trying to prove a negative as well. Guess you failed at logic too. More like I was trying to get you to prove the evidence that they have been ignoring protocol and rights are false or wrong. Or, in another way to put it, that they have been following protocol. Something you failed to do. What evidence exactly was I trying to disprove? Remember how you directly refused to provide ANY evidence at all other than your own opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 31, 2019 16:47:01 GMT -5
More like I was trying to get you to prove the evidence that they have been ignoring protocol and rights are false or wrong. Or, in another way to put it, that they have been following protocol. Something you failed to do. What evidence exactly was I trying to disprove? Remember how you directly refused to provide ANY evidence at all other than your own opinion? I don't know off the top of my head, go back and read it. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 31, 2019 16:47:28 GMT -5
To summarize today’s interaction: You: Do you have a clip? Me: No, because it’s based on how he acted during the entire hearing. You: So you don’t have a clip? Me: No, because it’s based on how he acted during the entire hearing, but here is the hearing. What part of that hearing is your clip? Me: No, because it’s based on the entire hearing... You stated something as if it was a fact, then only backed it up with a "this is just my opinion". |
|
