(06-26-2019 01:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Two things, the OP provided NO proof that these guys were headed to the US. Certainly they could have been, but don't say it if you can't prove it, right? That's what I've always been told here. I sure you feel differently and that's fine. But just apply the same standrd to me then, k?

No, this is not the standard that has been applied to you... at least not by me or anyone i know... Why you would spend so much time addressing those who address you that way, I don't know.

The OP linked and quoted the article, including the headline AND the comment that they believed they may be coming here. If you want to take issue with the report, that's fine... but your feigned 'i don't have a clue' is just that. You have a clue, you're just being obstinate to try and make a point, unrelated to the topic.

Quote:Second, nowhere did I say I believed the woman accusing trump of rape as I have no way of knowing. But to deny that it's not a news story worth posting on here is asinine at best.

Odd that you complain about what others do, while you did this to them first here,

I'd say that ISIS in Mexico right now is much more newsworthy than an alleged rape some 25 years ago, long past the SOL. It's certainly tabloid worthy, but that's all that it is. You claimed this wasn't newsworthy and are calling people who say the same about a 25 yr old allegation are asinine?

Get real Tom

SOP for RWT. He's fine with it until someone challenges him on something.

(06-26-2019 01:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Two things, the OP provided NO proof that these guys were headed to the US. Certainly they could have been, but don't say it if you can't prove it, right? That's what I've always been told here. I sure you feel differently and that's fine. But just apply the same standrd to me then, k?

No, this is not the standard that has been applied to you... at least not by me or anyone i know... Why you would spend so much time addressing those who address you that way, I don't know.

The OP linked and quoted the article, including the headline AND the comment that they believed they may be coming here. If you want to take issue with the report, that's fine... but your feigned 'i don't have a clue' is just that. You have a clue, you're just being obstinate to try and make a point, unrelated to the topic.

Quote:Second, nowhere did I say I believed the woman accusing trump of rape as I have no way of knowing. But to deny that it's not a news story worth posting on here is asinine at best.

Odd that you complain about what others do, while you did this to them first here,

I'd say that ISIS in Mexico right now is much more newsworthy than an alleged rape some 25 years ago, long past the SOL. It's certainly tabloid worthy, but that's all that it is. You claimed this wasn't newsworthy and are calling people who say the same about a 25 yr old allegation are asinine?

Get real Tom

I did this NOWHERE.

You get real bone.

(06-26-2019 03:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:23 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:46 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  That's BS!!!

Someone states that, "Mexican Officials Confirm 3 ISIS-linked Suspects Headed To U.S. Southern Border" and you cry that the "standard of proof" wasn't met for you to accept it.

On the other hand someone states that Trump raped or attempted to rape them in a very public place back in 1995 (with no evidence to back up the claim) and you not only see the "standard of proof" as being met, you start the topic for the postings on it.

Two things, the OP provided NO proof that these guys were headed to the US. Certainly they could have been, but don't say it if you can't prove it, right? That's what I've always been told here. I sure you feel differently and that's fine. But just apply the same standrd to me then, k?

Second, nowhere did I say I believed the woman accusing trump of rape as I have no way of knowing. But to deny that it's not a news story worth posting on here is asinine at best.

LeftwingTom ... "Sorry, but I've been conditioned here for years that you aren't allowed to post anything that's not 100% ironclad true with the supporting evidence". Those are your words.

Where is your "100% ironclad truth and supporting evidence" that Trump assaulted the woman in 1995 that you posted about? Those are your self proclaimed standards (so you say). You didn't say that you were OK posting something that was a "news story worth posting" even though there is ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE which is exactly what you did. Can you not see the HUGE difference between those two things? That's why I called you out on your 100% inaccurate statement and provided the supporting evidence.

Perhaps you can show me exactly where I said he did rape her? I'll hang up and wait......

Here's the thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-877991.html I used "allegation" in the thread title and added no additional commentary on the veracity of the claim.

So you admit then that you don't have any idea if it is true, and you didn't have any supporting evidence to support your article ...... *Mic Drop*

Look Leftwing .... no one on here has stated those to be the requirements for posting on the boards. I'm merely calling you out because you stated - and I showed you your own words - that you did follow those lofty standards (and you don't). Dance around the facts, spin it to the left and the right, do whatever you want. It won't change that.

This is completely ridiculous. Where in the **** would I get any evidence to prove that this woman was raped by trump decades ago?

And I've been posting here for years...and was told from the onset that I needed to have links and supporting details for all my posts. Sorry, but the right here gets to carry on otherwise with impunity mostly...and we all know why...I just can't say it for obvious reasons.

(06-27-2019 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 03:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:23 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Two things, the OP provided NO proof that these guys were headed to the US. Certainly they could have been, but don't say it if you can't prove it, right? That's what I've always been told here. I sure you feel differently and that's fine. But just apply the same standrd to me then, k?

Second, nowhere did I say I believed the woman accusing trump of rape as I have no way of knowing. But to deny that it's not a news story worth posting on here is asinine at best.

LeftwingTom ... "Sorry, but I've been conditioned here for years that you aren't allowed to post anything that's not 100% ironclad true with the supporting evidence". Those are your words.

Where is your "100% ironclad truth and supporting evidence" that Trump assaulted the woman in 1995 that you posted about? Those are your self proclaimed standards (so you say). You didn't say that you were OK posting something that was a "news story worth posting" even though there is ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE which is exactly what you did. Can you not see the HUGE difference between those two things? That's why I called you out on your 100% inaccurate statement and provided the supporting evidence.

Perhaps you can show me exactly where I said he did rape her? I'll hang up and wait......

Here's the thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-877991.html I used "allegation" in the thread title and added no additional commentary on the veracity of the claim.

So you admit then that you don't have any idea if it is true, and you didn't have any supporting evidence to support your article ...... *Mic Drop*

Look Leftwing .... no one on here has stated those to be the requirements for posting on the boards. I'm merely calling you out because you stated - and I showed you your own words - that you did follow those lofty standards (and you don't). Dance around the facts, spin it to the left and the right, do whatever you want. It won't change that.

This is completely ridiculous. Where in the **** would I get any evidence to prove that this woman was raped by trump decades ago?

And I've been posting here for years...and was told from the onset that I needed to have links and supporting details for all my posts. Sorry, but the right here gets to carry on otherwise with impunity mostly...and we all know why...I just can't say it for obvious reasons.

The original post provided a link.

Additional supporting details came in comments on the first page in which the content was proven correct concerning the three men arrested.

WTF are you complaining about?

(06-27-2019 12:26 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 03:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:23 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  LeftwingTom ... "Sorry, but I've been conditioned here for years that you aren't allowed to post anything that's not 100% ironclad true with the supporting evidence". Those are your words.

Where is your "100% ironclad truth and supporting evidence" that Trump assaulted the woman in 1995 that you posted about? Those are your self proclaimed standards (so you say). You didn't say that you were OK posting something that was a "news story worth posting" even though there is ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE which is exactly what you did. Can you not see the HUGE difference between those two things? That's why I called you out on your 100% inaccurate statement and provided the supporting evidence.

Perhaps you can show me exactly where I said he did rape her? I'll hang up and wait......

Here's the thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-877991.html I used "allegation" in the thread title and added no additional commentary on the veracity of the claim.

So you admit then that you don't have any idea if it is true, and you didn't have any supporting evidence to support your article ...... *Mic Drop*

Look Leftwing .... no one on here has stated those to be the requirements for posting on the boards. I'm merely calling you out because you stated - and I showed you your own words - that you did follow those lofty standards (and you don't). Dance around the facts, spin it to the left and the right, do whatever you want. It won't change that.

This is completely ridiculous. Where in the **** would I get any evidence to prove that this woman was raped by trump decades ago?

And I've been posting here for years...and was told from the onset that I needed to have links and supporting details for all my posts. Sorry, but the right here gets to carry on otherwise with impunity mostly...and we all know why...I just can't say it for obvious reasons.

The original post provided a link.

Additional supporting details came in comments on the first page in which the content was proven correct concerning the three men arrested.

WTF are you complaining about?

He’s complaining that there is evidence he is an idiot right there in front of his face and he can’t come up with an out.

(06-27-2019 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You claimed this wasn't newsworthy

Get real Tom

I did this NOWHERE.

You get real bone.

Post 15 What a crap thread/post.

So crap threads/posts are newsworthy?? In my world 'crap thread' = 'not newsworthy'.

I feel like you have a penchant to argue meaningless details...

You never said it wasn't newsworthy... you said it was crap. Wow, what a meaningful distinction.

And you said that first based almost solely on the source, and then you later realized that it was actually essentially correct... and now you're calling people asinine for saying a 25 yr old unsubstantiated rape allegation is 'crap'.


I'm VERY real. You're being pedantic.

(06-27-2019 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You claimed this wasn't newsworthy

Get real Tom

I did this NOWHERE.

You get real bone.

Post 15 What a crap thread/post.

So crap threads/posts are newsworthy?? In my world 'crap thread' = 'not newsworthy'.

I feel like you have a penchant to argue meaningless details...

You never said it wasn't newsworthy... you said it was crap. Wow, what a meaningful distinction.

And you said that first based almost solely on the source, and then you later realized that it was actually essentially correct... and now you're calling people asinine for saying a 25 yr old unsubstantiated rape allegation is 'crap'.


I'm VERY real. You're being pedantic.

Hey! Why you call him pendejo? He no pende...oh, pedantic. Sorry.

(06-27-2019 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 03:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:23 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Two things, the OP provided NO proof that these guys were headed to the US. Certainly they could have been, but don't say it if you can't prove it, right? That's what I've always been told here. I sure you feel differently and that's fine. But just apply the same standrd to me then, k?

Second, nowhere did I say I believed the woman accusing trump of rape as I have no way of knowing. But to deny that it's not a news story worth posting on here is asinine at best.

LeftwingTom ... "Sorry, but I've been conditioned here for years that you aren't allowed to post anything that's not 100% ironclad true with the supporting evidence". Those are your words.

Where is your "100% ironclad truth and supporting evidence" that Trump assaulted the woman in 1995 that you posted about? Those are your self proclaimed standards (so you say). You didn't say that you were OK posting something that was a "news story worth posting" even though there is ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE which is exactly what you did. Can you not see the HUGE difference between those two things? That's why I called you out on your 100% inaccurate statement and provided the supporting evidence.

Perhaps you can show me exactly where I said he did rape her? I'll hang up and wait......

Here's the thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-877991.html I used "allegation" in the thread title and added no additional commentary on the veracity of the claim.

So you admit then that you don't have any idea if it is true, and you didn't have any supporting evidence to support your article ...... *Mic Drop*

Look Leftwing .... no one on here has stated those to be the requirements for posting on the boards. I'm merely calling you out because you stated - and I showed you your own words - that you did follow those lofty standards (and you don't). Dance around the facts, spin it to the left and the right, do whatever you want. It won't change that.

This is completely ridiculous. Where in the **** would I get any evidence to prove that this woman was raped by trump decades ago?

And I've been posting here for years...and was told from the onset that I needed to have links and supporting details for all my posts. Sorry, but the right here gets to carry on otherwise with impunity mostly...and we all know why...I just can't say it for obvious reasons.

I agree LeftwingTom. This is indeed ridiculous. Apparently you can't comprehend the meaning of the words that you type.

No one expects you to provide evidence to support the woman's claim. Only a moron would even think the story had any merit to begin with. You'd probably have as good a chance providing evidence that the Moon is made out of Swiss Cheese. Again, just pointing out how you went against your own statement of "ironclad true with supporting evidence".

I could give you a break on it if you were referring to the story itself and providing evidence that there was an actual story, but that's not what you were meaning with your (false) statement. You were questioning the "evidence" of there being 3 ISIS-linked suspects headed to the border ..... not evidence of there being a story about it (which was proven by the link that was provided).

(06-27-2019 12:26 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 03:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:23 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  LeftwingTom ... "Sorry, but I've been conditioned here for years that you aren't allowed to post anything that's not 100% ironclad true with the supporting evidence". Those are your words.

Where is your "100% ironclad truth and supporting evidence" that Trump assaulted the woman in 1995 that you posted about? Those are your self proclaimed standards (so you say). You didn't say that you were OK posting something that was a "news story worth posting" even though there is ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE which is exactly what you did. Can you not see the HUGE difference between those two things? That's why I called you out on your 100% inaccurate statement and provided the supporting evidence.

Perhaps you can show me exactly where I said he did rape her? I'll hang up and wait......

Here's the thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-877991.html I used "allegation" in the thread title and added no additional commentary on the veracity of the claim.

So you admit then that you don't have any idea if it is true, and you didn't have any supporting evidence to support your article ...... *Mic Drop*

Look Leftwing .... no one on here has stated those to be the requirements for posting on the boards. I'm merely calling you out because you stated - and I showed you your own words - that you did follow those lofty standards (and you don't). Dance around the facts, spin it to the left and the right, do whatever you want. It won't change that.

This is completely ridiculous. Where in the **** would I get any evidence to prove that this woman was raped by trump decades ago?

And I've been posting here for years...and was told from the onset that I needed to have links and supporting details for all my posts. Sorry, but the right here gets to carry on otherwise with impunity mostly...and we all know why...I just can't say it for obvious reasons.

The original post provided a link.

Additional supporting details came in comments on the first page in which the content was proven correct concerning the three men arrested.

WTF are you complaining about?

He's like a lot of 7 year olds who when caught with cake all over their face insist they didn't eat the cake.