At the risk of saying BeetleJuice one time too many, what is this Verhoeven of which we speak? The wiki disambiguation page lists a bewildering array of Dutch people by that name, a fictional character, a few companies, and an extinct rodent.
lissener may have been right about Starship Troopers but probably not the way he thinks.
3:19: “[A] work of subversive genius that was definitely misunderstood when it first came out but now enough time has passed for the world to realize it’s not a dumb war movie. It’s just a movie about using war to take advantage of dumb people.”
Some may call this trolling but it seems like a perfectly reasonable argument to me:
Indeed. Just because a registered Republican registered his (dead) mother as a Republican and confessed that his purpose was to “further President Trump’s campaign” there’s no reason to assume that he used that illegal ballot to vote for Donald Trump. We can’t possibly even speculate what he might have done as there’s no evidence to even hint at it.
Over in Politics and Elections, friend agzem makes a valiant attempt to derail the thread with a distraction technique, and gets slapped down by the mods.
He tried the old “Trump is not that bad, because you can’t definitively prove that he raped a child” technique.
I’m quite surprised D’Aconia didn’t get a trolling warning for the posts in the Trump voting fraud thread. Either it is trolling or D’Aconia truly is the moroning moron who ever moroned. Since it is pretty impossible to be that stupid and still have a functioning brain stem, it has to be trolling.
Maybe he could be warned for terminal obtuseness? All I know is that if I’m ever on trial for something, I’d like him on my jury. Prosecution: "OK, you were found covered in blood with the knife in your hand and you said, “I can’t believe I killed that guy.” D’Anconia: “It could have been anyone, it’s impossible to tell!”
@Fiddle_Peghead is sealioning again, and on the exact same topic he was sealioning on back in September. Just asking the exact same dumb ass questions and chastising me for being so rude as to point that out.
Here’s a link to the start of the discussion of his sealioning in this thread a few months ago…
Then why not go back to that thread, and rather than take one sentence out of the number of sentences I wrote about Fox being more fair during the day than MSNBC, and address my main point. And this is, Steve Schmidt et. al. don’t have to debate the other side when they come on at night. That’s the whole point. Fox regularly had pundits on from both sides.
As for online discussions, they are a give and take. If I try and make a point, and you attempt to refute it by not actually addressing it, but instead by changing the subject, what’s the point? Nothing good would come from these discussions, because there would never be any.