Sarah Huckabee Sanders Kicked Out of Virginia Eatery

Legion said:
I don't care what your exemplar of arguing from authority said, since all parties don't recognize the Shaubenführer's infallibility, that's why. :D
Click to expand...

Nobody said he was infallible, just like nobody is willing to take what he wrote and break it down into why it was wrong. I know why.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rofl2: Y O U say she violated none of those things? What makes you an ethics expert? Why don't you explain in detail why Shaub is wrong... keeping in mind he was an ethics attorney for 11 years while you've been an ethics attorney for ?
Click to expand...

It isn't my job to prove you wrong. Again is his opinion fact? And you can't explain why he is right. Yurt is correct, you are using a logical fallacy by merely relying on some former ethics counsel. I don't care if he was counsel for a thousand years, he could still be wrong and at least I can argue my own opinion, unlike you.

You still can't address the fact she was asked to leave for her profession and politics. That is THREE times you have completely dodged my rebuttal to staub and your claim. And she was twitting about a news story and her being press secretary was at the heart of why she was asked to leave.

So again, why should she respond via her private account. 4th time.
 
christiefan915 said:
Why don't you show the class where freedumb called out a cop for his actions instead of posting more ad homs?
Click to expand...

I don't need to prove a claim I didn't make, do I? :dunno

Your latest titty baby is the one who said this:

Got69ed said:
According to some of you on here a cop can shoot a black man or child on sight because that person was a thug and somehow deserved death.
Click to expand...

Can you show the forum an example of "some of you on here" saying "a cop can shoot a black man or child on sight because that person was a thug and somehow deserved death", or not?

I'll understand if you can't. :D
 
christiefan915 said:
Are all experts infallible? Are ANY experts infallible?
Click to expand...

The Pope is, according to Catholic doctrine. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? :D

CarelessShortItaliangreyhound-size_restricted.gif
 
Yaya said:
It isn't my job to prove you wrong. Again is his opinion fact? And you can't explain why he is right. Yurt is correct, you are using a logical fallacy by merely relying on some former ethics counsel. I don't care if he was counsel for a thousand years, he could still be wrong and at least I can argue my own opinion, unlike you.

You still can't address the fact she was asked to leave for her profession and politics. That is THREE times you have completely dodged my rebuttal to staub and your claim. And she was twitting about a news story and her being press secretary was at the heart of why she was asked to leave.

So again, why should she respond via her private account. 4th time.
Click to expand...

IOW you can't explain why Shaub is wrong except by circular reasoning. "Shaub is wrong." "Why is Shaub wrong?" "Because she violated nothing and shaub is making up stuff." "Why don't you explain in detail how he's wrong?" "It isn't my job to prove your wrong and you can't explain why he's right."

Yurt in a nut shell.You can't address the citations so you're denying, deflecting and delaying.Always demanding from others what you refuse to do yourself.

If you aren't willing to explain those cites from the Code of Federal Regulation and why they don't apply, maybe you should just withdraw from the discussion.
 
christiefan915 said:
He wrote "I said she violated none of those things. You can't even explain how she did. Even staub had to make things up, like well, the corollary..... "

I suppose it's good you're seeing him as the blowhard he is.
Click to expand...

Gee, I actually debate my opinion and that makes me a blowhard.... You complain I don't debate (which is not true) and when I debate with you I am a blowhard.

Unbelievable...
 
christiefan915 said:
IOW you can't explain why Shaub is wrong except by circular reasoning. "Shaub is wrong." "Why is Shaub wrong?" "Because she violated nothing and shaub is making up stuff." "Why don't you explain in detail how he's wrong?" "It isn't my job to prove your wrong and you can't explain why he's right."

Yurt in a nut shell.You can't address the citations so you're denying, deflecting and delaying.Always demanding from others what you refuse to do yourself.

If you aren't willing to explain those cites from the Code of Federal Regulation and why they don't apply, maybe you should just withdraw from the discussion.
Click to expand...

5h time you have failed to address my points. I have repeatedly said because she was responding to a news issue about being let go because of her profession and her politics.

I also specifically addressed his word corollary. Do you even know what that word means?

Your constant lies are pathetic. And the fact you think I have to prove someone wrong shows you're incapable of debating. Yurt is correct, you rely solely on some so called expert,which is a logical fallacy.

You had your chance, 5 of them....
 
Yaya said:
5h time you have failed to address my points. I have repeatedly said because she was responding to a news issue about being let go because of her profession and her politics.

I also specifically addressed his word corollary. Do you even know what that word means?

Your constant lies are pathetic. And the fact you think I have to prove someone wrong shows you're incapable of debating. Yurt is correct, you rely solely on some so called expert,which is a logical fallacy.

You had your chance, 5 of them....
Click to expand...

Fifth time yurtsie's deflecting from explaining why Shaub's comments are wrong, including his corollary. Yes I know what a corollary is. I also know that you're trying to bury your lack of explanation in a blizzard of verbiage that has nothing to do with the question I asked you a multitude of times.

Pretty funny Y O U calling M E a liar. It's your default position when you're trying to wiggle out of a corner you were boxed into. You weren't asked to prove anything, just to explain why the CFR cites were wrong as applied to Slanders. You can't or won't do it because there is no alternate explanation.

You had your chances...
 
christiefan915 said:
IOW you can't explain why Shaub is wrong except by circular reasoning. "Shaub is wrong." "Why is Shaub wrong?" "Because she violated nothing and shaub is making up stuff." "Why don't you explain in detail how he's wrong?" "It isn't my job to prove your wrong and you can't explain why he's right."

Yurt in a nut shell.You can't address the citations so you're denying, deflecting and delaying.Always demanding from others what you refuse to do yourself.

If you aren't willing to explain those cites from the Code of Federal Regulation and why they don't apply, maybe you should just withdraw from the discussion.
Click to expand...

Right at the top you're asking me to prove why staub is wrong you dirty liar. YOU cited his claim, YOU show he is right.

It is not my job to prove your cite wrong. And you are the one using circular reasoning, well, staub is right because he is an expert.

That is textbook definition of circular reasoning.
 
Yaya said:
It isn't my job to prove you wrong. Again is his opinion fact? And you can't explain why he is right. Yurt is correct, you are using a logical fallacy by merely relying on some former ethics counsel. I don't care if he was counsel for a thousand years, he could still be wrong and at least I can argue my own opinion, unlike you.

You still can't address the fact she was asked to leave for her profession and politics. That is THREE times you have completely dodged my rebuttal to staub and your claim. And she was twitting about a news story and her being press secretary was at the heart of why she was asked to leave.

So again, why should she respond via her private account. 4th time.
Click to expand...

This was the FOURTH time I explained why she didn't violate the CFRs. Also the FOURTH time I asked Christiecrite why she should have to use her private account when it was a professional issue.

So for Christiecrite to claim I haven't explained myself is a bald face lie.

Saved Christie lies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top