Dear ajax, For your reading pleasure. Or not.

[Res Ipsa]

All the Bidens? Silly Russian dupe.

You may feel like addressing ajax in that manner, but I suggest it may be better to stick to reasonable responses that insist on addressing the key issues. Ajax is not the only reader of this board, and others inclined to his views may (some at least) be open to persuasion.

This message board is filled with factual refutations of the lies that Ajax has been spreading for months and months. He doesn't care. He just keeps repeating them. He and his fellow travelers are on the brink of doing something no foreign adversary has been able to do yet -- destroy American democracy and replace it with a one-party authoritarian regime. They are literally trying to turn the US into Russia by being complicit in a Russian disinformation campaign. If you don't think that one of America's two major political party's active promotion of a Russian disinformation campaign, enabled by citizens who eagerly embrace and promote lie after lie after lie without lifting a finger to discover the truth isn't a key issue, I don't know what to say.

But by all means, let's worry about tone.

[Res Ipsa]

You may feel like addressing ajax in that manner, but I suggest it may be better to stick to reasonable responses that insist on addressing the key issues. Ajax is not the only reader of this board, and others inclined to his views may (some at least) be open to persuasion.

Though I feel the same way as RI, I suppose there may be wisdom in your suggestion. No one likes to be accused of being a "dupe", especially if they really are dupes. Most real dupes would rather double down on remaining dupes than admit to having been one.

I would suggest that, if a person can't admit to being fooled, they aren't susceptible to reasoned argument.

[ajax18]

You may feel like addressing ajax in that manner, but I suggest it may be better to stick to reasonable responses that insist on addressing the key issues. Ajax is not the only reader of this board, and others inclined to his views may (some at least) be open to persuasion.

Though I feel the same way as RI, I suppose there may be wisdom in your suggestion. No one likes to be accused of being a "dupe", especially if they really are dupes. Most real dupes would rather double down on remaining dupes than admit to having been one.

Name calling can be effective, especially if you don't have a good answer of what product or service Hunter and Jim provided for the millions of dollars that China, Ukraine, Romania, etc. paid them. But I'd suggest going back to the old, "you're a rrrrrrrrrrrrrracist," to get out of arguments you can't win.

[Res Ipsa]

Though I feel the same way as RI, I suppose there may be wisdom in your suggestion. No one likes to be accused of being a "dupe", especially if they really are dupes. Most real dupes would rather double down on remaining dupes than admit to having been one.

Name calling can be effective, especially if you don't have a good answer of what product or service Hunter and Jim provided for the millions of dollars that China, Ukraine, Romania, etc. paid them. But I'd suggest going back to the old, "you're a rrrrrrrrrrrrrracist," to get out of arguments you can't win.

Ajax, you are confusing endless repetition of Russian disinformation with winning an argument. You've been repeating flat out lies for months -- lies targeted at you by Russian intelligence agents. Now you're retreating to an argument that has nothing to do with whether Joe Biden is fit to be President.

I do find your comment about name calling ironic, given the frequency with which you use that tactic. (Biden crime family, RINO, etc.)

[ajax18]

Name calling can be effective, especially if you don't have a good answer of what product or service Hunter and Jim provided for the millions of dollars that China, Unkraine, Romania, etc. paid them. But I'd suggest going back to the old, "you're a rrrrrrrrrrrrrracist," to get out of arguments you can't win.

Ajax, you are confusing endless repetition of Russian disinformation with winning an argument. You've been repeating flat out lies for months -- lies targeted at you by Russian intelligence agents. Now you're retreating to an argument that has nothing to do with whether Joe Biden is fit to be President.

I do find your comment about name calling ironic, given the frequency with which you use that tactic. (Biden crime family, RINO, etc.)

It's not a lie to say that Hunter texted on his phone that he had to give %50 to the big guy. The whistleblowers were not lying. And the laptop was not Russian disinformation as the 51 CIA agents claimed. And it's not a lie that the US government pressured social media to censor the story. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son made no money from China. It was a lie when Biden said he didn't know anything about his business dealings. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son had done nothing wrong and Biden knew it was a lie.

And how is it that Biden is somehow competent enough to be President but not competent enough to stand trial for willfully and knowingly take classified documents and storing them in his garage to write his book?

[Gunnar]

I would suggest that, if a person can't admit to being fooled, they aren't susceptible to reasoned argument.

Isn't that basically what I just said?

[Gunnar]

It's not a lie to say that Hunter texted on his phone that he had to give %50 to the big guy. The whistleblowers were not lying. And the laptop was not Russian disinformation as the 51 CIA agents claimed. And it's not a lie that the US government pressured social media to censor the story. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son made no money from China. It was a lie when Biden said he didn't know anything about his business dealings. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son had done nothing wrong and Biden knew it was a lie.

And how is it that Biden is somehow competent enough to be President but not competent enough to stand trial for willfully and knowingly take classified documents and storing them in his garage to write his book?

None of that made any sense to me nor did it refute anything RI said, as far as I could see!

[Chap]

You may feel like addressing ajax in that manner, but I suggest it may be better to stick to reasonable responses that insist on addressing the key issues. Ajax is not the only reader of this board, and others inclined to his views may (some at least) be open to persuasion.

This message board is filled with factual refutations of the lies that Ajax has been spreading for months and months. He doesn't care. He just keeps repeating them. He and his fellow travelers are on the brink of doing something no foreign adversary has been able to do yet -- destroy American democracy and replace it with a one-party authoritarian regime. They are literally trying to turn the US into Russia by being complicit in a Russian disinformation campaign. If you don't think that one of America's two major political party's active promotion of a Russian disinformation campaign, enabled by citizens who eagerly embrace and promote lie after lie after lie without lifting a finger to discover the truth isn't a key issue, i don't know what to say.

But by all means, let's worry about tone.

I am not at all worried by tone in itself. It is simply that I don't think your answer to Ajax was likely to influence somebody who might agree with him to change their mind.

Ajax will, of course, always respond to a reasoned and evidence based refutation by either repeating his original statement with variations, or starting to talk about something entirely different.

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax, you are confusing endless repetition of Russian disinformation with winning an argument. You've been repeating flat out lies for months -- lies targeted at you by Russian intelligence agents. Now you're retreating to an argument that has nothing to do with whether Joe Biden is fit to be President.

I do find your comment about name calling ironic, given the frequency with which you use that tactic. (Biden crime family, RINO, etc.)

It's not a lie to say that Hunter texted on his phone that he had to give %50 to the big guy. The whistleblowers were not lying. And the laptop was not Russian disinformation as the 51 CIA agents claimed. And it's not a lie that the US government pressured social media to censor the story. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son made no money from China. It was a lie when Biden said he didn't know anything about his business dealings. It was a lie when Biden claimed his son had done nothing wrong and Biden knew it was a lie.

And how is it that Biden is somehow competent enough to be President but not competent enough to stand trial for willfully and knowingly take classified documents and storing them in his garage to write his book?

You don't know what the laptop is because no one has ever done the work necessary to verify the extent of tampering. We already know that some tampering took place. We also know that a bunch of suspicious activity occurred with the laptop while Hunter was in a clinic. The Republicans will never investigate that because they don't want to know the answer.

Lying by omitting context is still lying. Take the 50% text, in which Hunter did not call Joe Biden "the big guy." He called him Pop. You call him "the big guy" as a slur. It was used in another e-mail that R's have been using to defame Joe Biden. Tony B completely destroyed the narrative on that one with his closed door testimony yesterday, which the Relief Society again lied about -- as they have been doing with all the closed door testimony. Tony testified that Joe Biden never had any financial interest in the company that was being formed. There was no secret big guy that was part of the deal. He also testified that he only met with Joe Biden twice -- both times when Joe Biden was a private citizen. He also testified that Joe Biden never discussed business with him.

The New York Times did an investigation and story about the 50% text, all of which you never mention. You just pretend that the text said "I had to give half of the Burisma money to Pop." But the text doesn't say that. It refers to a story that witnesses confirm Hunter told many times before he knew that there was a Burisma: when he was young, working, and living at home, Joe required him to pay for room and board. Naomi, who Hunter texted to, said that she instantly recognized what Hunter was referring to. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/p ... icans.html

The Relief Society have all the financial records. If Hunter had been giving half of his annual Burisma salary to Pop, they'd be able to trace the money. They'd be waving those records around and we'd all have copies. Instead, they withhold the records from the public and lie about what's in them over and over.

Lying by omission is still lying. Lying by false implication is still lying. Taking a piece of a text conversation here and another one there and creating a false story is lying. That's what the House Relief Society are doing and what you are repeating.

The CIA agents? You're lying about what they actually said. Here's the letter. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175 ... 9f9b330000
Read what they actually said and why they said it. Given the revelation that the CI was spreading the same kind of disinformation about Joe Biden in the months before the election, it sounds like they were spot on. After all, the GOP has never even tried to investigate whether Russian intelligence was involved with the release of the laptop or disinformation about its contents.

I'm not going to chase through the rest of your Gish Gallop. It's always the same. You barf out a list of false or misleading talking points that repeat Russian disinformation and pretend that you've proved some kind of point. But the only point you ever prove is that you are willing to promote Russian propaganda and disinformation and are not at all interested in the truth.

[Res Ipsa]

This message board is filled with factual refutations of the lies that Ajax has been spreading for months and months. He doesn't care. He just keeps repeating them. He and his fellow travelers are on the brink of doing something no foreign adversary has been able to do yet -- destroy American democracy and replace it with a one-party authoritarian regime. They are literally trying to turn the US into Russia by being complicit in a Russian disinformation campaign. If you don't think that one of America's two major political party's active promotion of a Russian disinformation campaign, enabled by citizens who eagerly embrace and promote lie after lie after lie without lifting a finger to discover the truth isn't a key issue, i don't know what to say.

But by all means, let's worry about tone.

I am not at all worried by tone in itself. It is simply that I don't think your answer to Ajax was likely to influence somebody who might agree with him to change their mind.

Ajax will, of course, always respond to a reasoned and evidence based refutation by either repeating his original statement with variations, or starting to talk about something entirely different.

Gotcha.