1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fauci wrote the playbook.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You really have to stretch the definition of "lawfare" to make this work.
What would you say double jeopardy is meant to prevent?
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:38 am to Azkiger
quote:
What would you say double jeopardy is meant to prevent?
Look. You already made my point for me. I won. I'm good
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Look. You already made my point for me. I won. I'm good
What's your point?
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:41 am to BFIV
Don't forge the Mueller "that's outside of my purview" excuse to not answer directly.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:45 am to Azkiger
quote:
What's your point?
You know someone is cooked when they can't even answer simple questions.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:45 am to Azkiger
quote:
What's your point?
quote:
You really have to stretch the definition of "lawfare" to make this work.
You do you.
That's just proving my point about lawfare, though.
LINK
If you want to contort "lawfare" into that point, I win. The more you push it, the more I win.
This post was edited on 11/12/26 at 7:46 am
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:46 am to Azkiger
quote:
You know someone is cooked when they can't even answer simple questions.
The answer was already given. You can't even read
*ETA: given on page 1. Not my post above
This post was edited on 11/12/26 at 7:47 am
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you want to contort "lawfare" into that point, I win.
How?
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:48 am to Azkiger
quote:
How?
For the third time
quote:
You really have to stretch the definition of "lawfare" to make this work.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You really have to stretch the definition of "lawfare" to make this work.
Even if this is true (its not), how does it prove your point (that lawfare doesn't exist)?
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:50 am to Azkiger
quote:
how does it prove your point (that lawfare doesn't exist)?
That's a strawman
I've never argued lawfare doesn't exist
If you had actually read my actual arguments, you would understand the point that's been made 3x.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:50 am to Azkiger
quote:
It has to do with lawfare
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Your dopamine levels must have been low this morning.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I've never argued lawfare doesn't exist
I win.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:54 am to Azkiger
quote:
I win.
With a strawman?
Like I said on page 1. You do you.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With a strawman?
By you saying that youre not saying lawfare doesn't exist youre showing that you do have a concept of what lawfare is.
So when you try to distract in a lawfare thread, I can post your own response to show what you're just playing the dumb definition game.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 8:04 am to Azkiger
quote:
By you saying that youre not saying lawfare doesn't exist youre showing that you do have a concept of what lawfare is.
This is stated incorrectly. My argument is that is has nothing close to a singular definition and is a completely malleable term that is redefined for the argument
What have you done in this thread: used it in a malleable way to add yet another definition to try to force it into a point you're trying to make.
So, for the 4th time:
quote:
You really have to stretch the definition of "lawfare" to make this work.
You do you.
That's just proving my point about lawfare, though.
LINK
quote:
So when you try to distract in a lawfare thread, I can post your own response to show what you're just playing the dumb definition game.
Yeah you need to learn to read better
Posted on 11/12/26 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is stated incorrectly. My argument is that is has nothing close to a singular definition and is a completely malleable term that is redefined for the argument
Yes, you're doing the dumb definition game.
Example
You: "Whats the definition of a chair?"
TD Conservative: "You no what a chair is, lets discuss the topic of chairs."
You: "No, I don't know. You need to define your terms."
TD Conservative: "Okay, fine. A chair is something you sit on that has four legs."
You: "So a horse is a chair?"
TD Conservative: "No, stop being ridiculous."
You: "I'm just going off your definition."
shite like the above is why no one respects you. You don't argue in good faith and always try and derail a thread in the above manner.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 8:27 am to Azkiger
quote:
Yes, you're doing the dumb definition game.
The the point you miss is that I'm not the one doing the dumb definition game. It's the people who keep redefining the term for their arguments that are doing this. I'm just pointing out what they are doing. You are engaging in this behavior in this thread and I pointed out that you are doing exactly what happens in these discussions by adding another definition.
So no it's not me playing the definition game.
Posted on 11/12/26 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The the point you miss is that I'm not the one doing the dumb definition game.
I've watched you do it in multiple threads.
quote:
It's the people who keep redefining the term for their arguments that are doing this
They keep redefining the term because you keep twisting the four legged thing you sit on into a horse. You refuse to engage with good faith.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News