"Crowd-size" important enough for a press-conference

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

not sure why you think my statement is me playing dumb. count up the number of lies trump told in his cia speech. count up the number of lies spicer rattled off on saturday night and then the embarrassing display conway put on sunday. all lies in action. ain't nobody being coy.

 

If actions were the same as words, "actions speak louder than words" would never exist. I don't condone the stuff that he said, I think it's stupid. But I wanna see what kind of action comes out of his office. That's a helluva lot more important to me than sitting and dissecting words all day every day.

Edited January 23, 2017 by OriZ

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

If actions were the same as words, "actions speak louder than words" would never exist. I don't condone the stuff that he said, I think it's stupid. But I wanna see what kind of action comes out of his office.

who said actions were the same as words, i said a lie is an action. and multiple lies have been told three days in. ridiculously silly lies. 

so as i was saying, thus far, what action has come out of trump's office has been lies. 

[OriZ 3,157]

14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

who said actions were the same as words, i said a lie is an action. and multiple lies have been told three days in. ridiculously silly lies. 

so as i was saying, thus far, what action has come out of trump's office has been lies. 

 

Well, he's also signed some executive orders that I have no qualms with. That's the kind of stuff I'll be watching. That and whatever goes to congress. Don't get me wrong his words matter and whenever he does something like that I'll do a face palm, but at the end of the day it's not going to be a huge factor for me in determining whether or not he was a good president.

[smilesammich 10,727]

lies not a huge factor in determining if leadership is successful. got it.

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

lies not a huge factor in determining if leadership is successful. got it.

 

Show me any of them that has not lied. Did Clinton(both) not lie? Did Obama not lie? It's their job to tell bold face lies on a daily basis pretty much.

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

Oh, I take it back. I guess it didn't register after all. Oh well maybe next time. In the meanwhile there are some of us that have and will use that wealth of knowledge in our possession. I notice you seem to be trying to turn everything personal not just with me but there's others here you insist recently on trying to pick fights with...I get that this is a very frustrating time for you but sorry, we try to stay out of these. It's all it seems you want to be doing these days so I think you've probably been spending too much time here dude, maybe due for a break? I hear the Clintons have a real quaint place. 

 

Back to the topic: Anybody who seriously thinks after looking at all the metrics that it is possible that there were less than half a million people at the inauguration is fake news. I examined those myself and I would say Obama(both times) had more people for sure, but I would put Trump tied with Clinton's first(around 700,000-800,000), and better than both Bushs.

 

    You've been making derogatory comments all weekend Oriz. When you make generalized statements about an entire group of people it does make it personal for people in that group.  When you claim you didn't make the statements, it shows a lack of integrity and responsibility. I don't take anything on this site personally, but I will respond to disdainful comments in kind. If you want to point the finger about making it personal, I suggest you first find a mirror. 

[OriZ 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

 

    You've been making derogatory comments all weekend Oriz. When you make generalized statements about an entire group of people it does make it personal for people in that group.  When you claim you didn't make the statements, it shows a lack of integrity and responsibility. I don't take anything on this site personally, but I will respond to disdainful comments in kind. If you want to point the finger about making it personal, I suggest you first find a mirror. 

 

Definition of generalization

1. 1:  the act or process of generalizing

2. 2:  a general statement, law, principle, or proposition <made broad generalizations about women>

3. 3:  the act or process whereby a learned response is made to a stimulus similar to but not identical with the conditioned stimulus

Sorry, I made no generalizations and there's none you can point to. Saying "some", or talking about specific people is not a generalization, Calling someone a jerk does not constitute of responding in kind so spare me. The one who makes things personal, and again not only against me but evidently others here is you. I make nothing personal and take nothing personal.

Edited January 23, 2017 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

Oh, I take it back. I guess it didn't register after all. Oh well maybe next time. In the meanwhile there are some of us that have and will use that wealth of knowledge in our possession. I notice you seem to be trying to turn everything personal not just with me but there's others here you insist recently on trying to pick fights with...I get that this is a very frustrating time for you but sorry, we try to stay out of these. It's all it seems you want to be doing these days so I think you've probably been spending too much time here dude, maybe due for a break? I hear the Clintons have a real quaint place. 

 

Back to the topic: Anybody who seriously thinks after looking at all the metrics that it is possible that there were less than half a million people at the inauguration is fake news. I examined those myself and I would say Obama(both times) had more people for sure, but I would put Trump tied with Clinton's first(around 700,000-800,000), and better than both Bushs.

Sorry Oriz but you aren't veiling your attempt at acting "superior" very well. He didn't pick a fit with you. He made a comment about the press conference being rated "Pants of Fire". You then quoted him and argued that the assessment that it was "Pants on Fire" was "Fake news" (when in reality there is plenty to back up the fact that Spicer quite literally lied more than once during that conference). The first "insult" between the two of you was when you replied "You've been reading fake news again?". You  made it personal. You didn't just reply with the evidence for why it was fake, you personally directed it at him. I

 

So if anything you were trying to make it personal to begin with and now you try to spin it to make yourself look like the "calm and collected" one. It's a joke. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Definition of generalization

1. 1:  the act or process of generalizing

2. 2:  a general statement, law, principle, or proposition <made broad generalizations about women>

3. 3:  the act or process whereby a learned response is made to a stimulus similar to but not identical with the conditioned stimulus

Sorry, I made no generalizations and there's none you can point to. Saying "some", or talking about specific people is not a generalization, Calling someone a jerk does not constitute of responding in kind so spare me. The one who makes things personal, and again not only against me but evidently others here is you. I make nothing personal and take nothing personal.

seriously just read you calling trump critics 'retards'

[OriZ 3,157]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sorry Oriz but you aren't veiling your attempt at acting "superior" very well. He didn't pick a fit with you. He made a comment about the press conference being rated "Pants of Fire". You then quoted him and argued that the assessment that it was "Pants on Fire" was "Fake news" (when in reality there is plenty to back up the fact that Spicer quite literally lied more than once during that conference). The first "insult" between the two of you was when you replied "You've been reading fake news again?". You  made it personal. You didn't just reply with the evidence for why it was fake, you personally directed it at him. I

 

So if anything you were trying to make it personal to begin with and now you try to spin it to make yourself look like the "calm and collected" one. It's a joke. 

Sorry, you are wrong. It didn't start today and my comment about fake news was in reference to a different comment from before today. Try again.

Edited January 23, 2017 by OriZ

[Dakine10 5,452]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Sorry, I made no generalizations and there's none you can point to. 

    I actually think you believe that. In the interest of not making things more personal, I'll leave it at that. 

  

    I will point out the post you referred to as me 'reading fake news', you actually then agreed with by your 'own analysis'. I hope you weren't in such a hurry to get a personal shot in that you ended up contradicting yourself.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

seriously just read you calling trump critics 'retards'

 

specific group of people. Specifics are important. No generalization there. Next.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Sorry, you are wrong. It didn't start today and my comment about fake news was in reference to a different comment from before today. Try again.

Your comment about "fake news" was quoting him. If you meant it to reference an earlier statement, quote that one. If it was a statement from another thread, leave it out. Heck if it was from an earlier thread you were clearly then making it "personal" by bringing it up here. 

 

Seriously this isn't working for you so we should all move on.

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

Just now, Dakine10 said:

    I actually think you believe that. In the interest of not making things more personal, I'll leave it at that. 

  

    I will point out the post you referred to as me 'reading fake news', you actually then agreed with by your 'own analysis'. I hope you weren't in such a hurry to get a personal shot in that you ended up contradicting yourself.

 

In fact I do believe it. In regards to the latter part of your comment, the "fake" was referring to their estimation which is way off, not to the fact that it was not the biggest. I guess you didn't scroll all the way down in the link you posted?

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

specific group of people. Specifics are important. No generalization there. Next.

and now you're trying 'alternative facts' on for size. trump is a virus.