@tedejr52.bsky.social
LMFPGWAO. You know what most of it is. The unknown part, PGW, stands for Pasty Geeky White. FYI, if you see VEFG from me it means Very Evil F***ing Grin
I have no tolerance for:
1--Condescension
2--Ad Hominems
3--People who refuse to acknowledge facts
I have no tolerance for:
1--Condescension
2--Ad Hominems
3--People who refuse to acknowledge facts
That is what the "smart money " is saying. That would make it a twofer. From the WH perspective. Congress gets tainted/falsified information (if that much) & the public gets squat.
November 17, 2025 at 7:40 PM
That is what the "smart money " is saying. That would make it a twofer. From the WH perspective. Congress gets tainted/falsified information (if that much) & the public gets squat.
The election is in November. Won't he be in Mexico hiding from oncoming winter during that time?
November 17, 2025 at 6:09 PM
The election is in November. Won't he be in Mexico hiding from oncoming winter during that time?
Extending that final thought on that meme, coincidentally, I said recently that as an older fart, there is a possibility that my final years on this planet may be spent under the rule of a convicted criminal who is also a pedophile.
November 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM
Extending that final thought on that meme, coincidentally, I said recently that as an older fart, there is a possibility that my final years on this planet may be spent under the rule of a convicted criminal who is also a pedophile.
That is the salient point. There is documented EVIDENCE of what transpired. Unfortunately, the POTUS was clever enough to know that a campaign would at least temporarily put a hold on proceedings. Or someone explained it to him. On a level that he could understand.
😁
😁
November 17, 2025 at 5:28 PM
That is the salient point. There is documented EVIDENCE of what transpired. Unfortunately, the POTUS was clever enough to know that a campaign would at least temporarily put a hold on proceedings. Or someone explained it to him. On a level that he could understand.
😁
😁
Anyone who debates a fallacy has already lost, & by extension, is a fool.
In no way will I knowingly lose, & I can assure you, I am no fool.
BTW, you are the epitome of point 3.
In no way will I knowingly lose, & I can assure you, I am no fool.
BTW, you are the epitome of point 3.
November 17, 2025 at 5:24 PM
Anyone who debates a fallacy has already lost, & by extension, is a fool.
In no way will I knowingly lose, & I can assure you, I am no fool.
BTW, you are the epitome of point 3.
In no way will I knowingly lose, & I can assure you, I am no fool.
BTW, you are the epitome of point 3.
I recall the event very specifically. He was asked what would happen, & he responded with his opinion.
Let's not assume. I recounted the event. That in no way advocates.
Let's not assume. I recounted the event. That in no way advocates.
November 17, 2025 at 5:19 PM
I recall the event very specifically. He was asked what would happen, & he responded with his opinion.
Let's not assume. I recounted the event. That in no way advocates.
Let's not assume. I recounted the event. That in no way advocates.
AKA the Two Wrongs Fallacy. My neighbor robbed a bank, so it is okay for me to rob one.
Which ignores the fact that each person is judged by their own behaviour, not the behaviour of others.
And that is probably why that line of argument is a Fallacy, isn't it?
😁
Which ignores the fact that each person is judged by their own behaviour, not the behaviour of others.
And that is probably why that line of argument is a Fallacy, isn't it?
😁
November 17, 2025 at 2:57 PM
AKA the Two Wrongs Fallacy. My neighbor robbed a bank, so it is okay for me to rob one.
Which ignores the fact that each person is judged by their own behaviour, not the behaviour of others.
And that is probably why that line of argument is a Fallacy, isn't it?
😁
Which ignores the fact that each person is judged by their own behaviour, not the behaviour of others.
And that is probably why that line of argument is a Fallacy, isn't it?
😁
You are correct. I presumed that my initial post was clear on this point, but I did notice the date, just not initially.
November 17, 2025 at 2:48 PM
You are correct. I presumed that my initial post was clear on this point, but I did notice the date, just not initially.
Oooohhhhh. How cute. An ad hominem condescension. TBH, I am not sure what your exact position is. But then again, Ad Hominems don't have exact positions, do they?
Whew. What a relief. It didn't go over my head because it was at ground level.
😁
Whew. What a relief. It didn't go over my head because it was at ground level.
😁
November 17, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Oooohhhhh. How cute. An ad hominem condescension. TBH, I am not sure what your exact position is. But then again, Ad Hominems don't have exact positions, do they?
Whew. What a relief. It didn't go over my head because it was at ground level.
😁
Whew. What a relief. It didn't go over my head because it was at ground level.
😁
I just hope that someone had the good sense a year ago to create copies that are stored in a secure location.
November 17, 2025 at 1:29 PM
I just hope that someone had the good sense a year ago to create copies that are stored in a secure location.
If he said that to reporters, release the files, it would have been splashed all over the news.
The fact that it wasn't is ipso facto confirmation that he didn't.
The fact that it wasn't is ipso facto confirmation that he didn't.
November 17, 2025 at 1:27 PM
If he said that to reporters, release the files, it would have been splashed all over the news.
The fact that it wasn't is ipso facto confirmation that he didn't.
The fact that it wasn't is ipso facto confirmation that he didn't.
Ah, I didn't notice the date. I remember that when it was first released. TBF, he was expressing his OPINION regarding what MIGHT happen.
However, given the POTUS change of heart regarding the file release vote, his opinion might have validity.
However, given the POTUS change of heart regarding the file release vote, his opinion might have validity.
November 17, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Ah, I didn't notice the date. I remember that when it was first released. TBF, he was expressing his OPINION regarding what MIGHT happen.
However, given the POTUS change of heart regarding the file release vote, his opinion might have validity.
However, given the POTUS change of heart regarding the file release vote, his opinion might have validity.
Which explains why the POTUS has reversed course & is now encouraging the release of the information. Now that they have completed the task.
thehill.com/newsletters/...
thehill.com/newsletters/...
thehill.com
November 17, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Which explains why the POTUS has reversed course & is now encouraging the release of the information. Now that they have completed the task.
thehill.com/newsletters/...
thehill.com/newsletters/...
Several reasons. Including legal ones. However, that is a Fallacy Question. To wit, the False Equivalence Fallacy.
November 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM
Several reasons. Including legal ones. However, that is a Fallacy Question. To wit, the False Equivalence Fallacy.
People frequently confuse the observation of facts/events with a position statement. Many of my posts have been subjected to that misinterpretation.
I can commiserate with you.
I can commiserate with you.
November 17, 2025 at 2:23 AM
People frequently confuse the observation of facts/events with a position statement. Many of my posts have been subjected to that misinterpretation.
I can commiserate with you.
I can commiserate with you.
Just curious How old are you? I ask because you state out front that you are unwilling to examine options if they don't comport with your preconceived notions.
Does that position make you more competent in the field of politics?
Does that position make you more competent in the field of politics?
November 17, 2025 at 2:07 AM
Just curious How old are you? I ask because you state out front that you are unwilling to examine options if they don't comport with your preconceived notions.
Does that position make you more competent in the field of politics?
Does that position make you more competent in the field of politics?
I concur with your suggestion but not your premise.
Yes and advisory position would take advantage of their expertise however they should not be precluded from the position based SOLELY upon their age
Yes and advisory position would take advantage of their expertise however they should not be precluded from the position based SOLELY upon their age
November 17, 2025 at 2:02 AM
I concur with your suggestion but not your premise.
Yes and advisory position would take advantage of their expertise however they should not be precluded from the position based SOLELY upon their age
Yes and advisory position would take advantage of their expertise however they should not be precluded from the position based SOLELY upon their age
This does not have to be an either/or black or white option. I have long advocated for a 2 yr tenure at a local gov't position before running for statewide or national positions
November 17, 2025 at 1:59 AM
This does not have to be an either/or black or white option. I have long advocated for a 2 yr tenure at a local gov't position before running for statewide or national positions
I regret if this offends anyone, but that just looks so much like white trash
November 16, 2025 at 9:56 PM
I regret if this offends anyone, but that just looks so much like white trash
2/2
FWIW if that analysis was made & I simply haven't heard it mea culpa Regardless that is the valid way to review this If the price per ounce is the same the pertinent discussion is product quality If it changed then the direction of change is germane
FWIW if that analysis was made & I simply haven't heard it mea culpa Regardless that is the valid way to review this If the price per ounce is the same the pertinent discussion is product quality If it changed then the direction of change is germane
November 16, 2025 at 9:21 PM
2/2
FWIW if that analysis was made & I simply haven't heard it mea culpa Regardless that is the valid way to review this If the price per ounce is the same the pertinent discussion is product quality If it changed then the direction of change is germane
FWIW if that analysis was made & I simply haven't heard it mea culpa Regardless that is the valid way to review this If the price per ounce is the same the pertinent discussion is product quality If it changed then the direction of change is germane
Something that NO-ONE has addressed is whether the price reduction is proportional to the product reduction If it is this may be a non-issue If it isn't then it is a fair topic of discussion depending upon how that ratio changed
1/2
1/2
November 16, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Something that NO-ONE has addressed is whether the price reduction is proportional to the product reduction If it is this may be a non-issue If it isn't then it is a fair topic of discussion depending upon how that ratio changed
1/2
1/2