Nope. You’re style is abrasive and assoholic. I don’t bother trying to discuss things with people who have no manners. Apologize and I’ll reconsider.
I never stated that they were yours.
No one said you did.
Ah, well, I disagree with you here: they have plenty to do with you.
For a 3rd time: no one said they were yours.
But yeah, they have a lot to do with you, IMO.
That’s a completely different situation from your previous post where the owner quietly asks them to leave.
In this case, I would imagine that the SS would take actions the see as necessary to protect her body, but they have no obligation to protect her pride.
Ahh … the classic “I have no answers to any of your criticism, so I’ll just call you rude while dodging everything in a pathetic attempt to claim the moral high ground” response. It’s comically ironic after you demonstrated your own “manners” by insultingly calling me thick headed for making an analogy you didn’t understand.
Judging by your other posts in this thread, it appears that this quote was just empty words.
So you’ll refuse to associate with someone because he said something mean? I feel like someone here has claimed that to be intolerant and bigoted. Dunno who it might be…
Which should be to remove her - forcefully if needed - from the ‘dangerous’ situation.
ironic - in order to protect her feelings, they must remove her from teh place that asked her to leave.
(I do wonder if the SS protection has more to do with the ‘death threats’ I’m sure she is getting and nothing to do with this particular situation).
I think he’s from California, so you gotta make some allowances. They don’t get a proper raisin’ out there.
That’ll earn you a warning, Biffster. Do not insult other posters. If you must, please do so in the BBQ Pit.
So, basically, you’re holding people who interact with Sarah Sanders to a higher standard of decorum than you are willing to exhibit yourself.
Thank you for so succinctly illustrating the hypocrisy of your position.
I heard it through the grapevine that there actually are proper raisins in California.
I’ll let myself out.
Better move quick, the hounds have already been released.
You wrote the words. You claimed that your words are my argument. They are not. You explicitly and publically attached my name to your words. You continue to do so. Please stop doing so. Your words have nothing to do with me. I didn’t make you write your words. They’re your words, not mine.
That is not in any way what he has done here.
He has drawn an analogy between the words that you wrote in your post #202, and some words that he made up that he felt followed the same logic.
If you feel that that analogy is in error, then contest that. Show how you are not making the claim that the reasons that she was kicked out was due to her political position, rather than her political actions.
This erroneous continuation of claiming that he did something that he did not do is getting tiresome though. Please stop doing so.
I did not make the claim that they claimed I made, namely that a police officer shooting “an unarmed man who was already handcuffed and in custody” (the exact words they used) is just doing his job.
The reason why the restaurant owner refused to allow SHS to eat there is irrelevant to that. That is a claim about me, not a claim about the restaurant owner.
If they had said “You are wrong about the reason why the restaurant owner refused to allow SHS to eat there”, that would have been a completely different thing. But that’s not what they did.
Right, because it is an analogy. What are we having difficulty with here?
Did you make this claim?
Then you made the claim that “she was just doing her job”.
Your style is one of dismissal. Clearly not persuasive.
They never said you made that claim. They said the logic in your claim is the same logic in the argument they presented.
Jesus Christ, you and Biffster should form a club.
I’m “having diffculty” with being accused of something I didn’t do in order to make me look bad. I think you’d be “having difficulty” with that if it happened to you.
And no, claiming that someone has said that shooting people handcuffed and in custody is part of a police officer’s job is not an analogy for a person being refused service in a restaurant because of the job they have.
You’ll notice that I’m not debating the reason for SHS being refused service here. That’s because it’s not relevant to me being accused of doing something I didn’t do, of making an argument I didn’t make.
If you want to have an entirely seperate dispute over the reason why SHS was refused service I’d be fine with that. But it would be an entirely seperate dispute. Not claiming I said something I didn’t said. That’s not the same thing at all.
No, they didn’t. Their post is still available for anyone to check. They said it was my argument, not that it was the same logic as my argument.
You mean this one, right here, right?
He’s not saying that’s your argument. You are, at this point, literally the only person in this thread who can’t figure this out.