Even more reasons the SCOTUS needs ethics reform.

[kalimgoodman]

Holy crap you can’t be this dumb.

The article you posted was ONLY talking about the 2007 policy relieving debt of ONLY public servants.

The article I posted is talking about NEW PROPOSED REGULATION that is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS decision. It’s a means tested debt forgiveness program.

Those are extremely different stories.

I didn't comment on your link. I never read it and won't. I was just speaking to CNN and Fox article that I posted. How they both explained how Biden forgave those student loans. I actually ignored that post by you because it was your attempt to switch topics. The topic was how Biden forgave those loans (the past).

It's funny because you always reply to what you want to reply but I not what I said. If I say the sky is blue, you'll reply about birds and airplanes 😂. That's why I'm always confused about wtf you're talking about.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I’m old enough to remember when Biden emptied the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower gas prices ahead of the mid terms.

They will literally buy votes, no matter who they hurt.

Trump accuses Biden of emptying US oil reserves, despite depleting them too

Donald Trump accused Biden of draining America’s strategic petroleum reserve, claiming he built it up to “100% full” despite seeing a reduction in the reserve over his administration as well.…

nypost.com

 

[Orangeclad]

Switching topics, instead of acknowledgement. I can't 😖

Acknowledgment of what? You speak in riddles wrapped in confusion. But never mind. But I concede. Whatever I'm supposed to acknowledge, I acknowledge. You win the thread as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RussellCasse]

I didn't comment on your link. I never read it and won't. I was just speaking to CNN and Fox article that I posted. How they both explained how Biden forgave those student loans. I actually ignored that post by you because it was your attempt to switch topics. The topic was how Biden forgave those loans (the past).

It's funny because you always reply to what you want to reply but I not what I said. If I say the sky is blue, you'll reply about birds and airplanes 😂. That's why I'm always confused about wtf you're talking about.

When 10 people all come to the same conclusion that 1 person has issues comprehending what they are reading, and then posts things that the other 10 people go WTF….

It’s probably time to acknowledge that the 10 aren’t the problem, and the 1 is the problem.

You know, sort of like that one person who has no friends because it’s everyone else’s fault.

And since you have difficulty, in this scenario….you are the 1.

💊

 

[fatman76]

I didn't comment on your link. I never read it and won't. I was just speaking to CNN and Fox article that I posted. How they both explained how Biden forgave those student loans. I actually ignored that post by you because it was your attempt to switch topics. The topic was how Biden forgave those loans (the past).

It's funny because you always reply to what you want to reply but I not what I said. If I say the sky is blue, you'll reply about birds and airplanes 😂. That's why I'm always confused about wtf you're talking about.

You can ignore being wrong all you want, you thought you had settled the debate with your Fox article…confirmed your CNN article…neither of which had anything to do with your president overriding the SCOTUS.

Which proves that you should be much more concerned with Biden’s alleged corruption than Thomas’…elected or not one person comprising an entire branch of gov’t is much more powerful than 1/9th of another.

Stay on topic.

 

[kalimgoodman]

You can ignore being wrong all you want, you thought you had settled the debate with your Fox article…confirmed your CNN article…neither of which had anything to do with your president overriding the SCOTUS.

Which proves that you should be much more concerned with Biden’s alleged corruption than Thomas’…elected or not one person comprising an entire branch of gov’t is much more powerful than 1/9th of another.

Stay on topic.

You do know the title of this thread is SCOTUS ethics reform? Not Thomas ethics reform?

Actually I didn't think it would settle anything. I am well aware of the crowd. Orange already admitted that he's a bad faith debater, Russell is a troll, that I'm avoiding but he follows me EVERYWHERE and think you can win opinions.

I'll just state my opinions, you can state yours and leave it at that (except Russell, i wish he just respectfully leave me alone).

I'll dive into details with good faith debaters like Trey, lord and grandhavendiddy.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Acknowledgment of what? You speak in riddles wrapped in confusion. But never mind. But I concede. Whatever I'm supposed to acknowledge, I acknowledge. You win the thread as far as I'm concerned.

True to form.

 

[RussellCasse]

You do know the title of this thread is SCOTUS ethics reform? Not Thomas ethics reform?

Actually I didn't think it would settle anything. I am well aware of the crowd. Orange already admitted that he's a bad faith debater, Russell is a troll, that I'm avoiding but he follows me EVERYWHERE and think you can win opinions.

I'll just state my opinions, you can state yours and leave it at that (except Russell, i wish he just respectfully leave me alone).

I'll dive into details with good faith debaters like Trey, lord and grandhavendiddy.

Ahhhh. Name calling and projecting. All in one sentence. Delicious.

If my name were kalimgoodman I probably would have reported you already.

It’s a nice attempt at the end of your post to cuddle up to people so that you aren’t the 1 I described above.

Desperate for validation much?

 

[Orangeclad]

True to form.

You're just angry all the time. You're mad when you get an L, or no concession or no acknowledgment. Then you're mad when you get a W, a concession and an acknowledgment. Nothing satisfies you.
If you want to think you have won this thread, I'm good with that, with no problem. I am only speaking for me. So yes, George Bush signed something in 2007. End of story.

And tell me where I admitted I am a bad faith debater as you say in 168.

 

[LordofallSocks]

I didn't comment on your link. I never read it and won't.

What the hell yo. That's not how you construct an honest argument.

That's holding forth on a subject and then expecting him/them to take your word for it.

The purpose of discussion is to state your case and then defend it. Against ALL comers.

I'm not going to call you names, but I am damn sure going to hold you accountable for what you say. I am dissappointed AF in you man.

 

[Orangeclad]

True to form.

You're just angry all the time. You're mad when you get an L, or no concession or no acknowledgment. Then you're mad when you get a W, a concession and an acknowledgment. Nothing satisfies you.
If you want to think you have won this thread, I'm good with that, with no problem. I am only speaking for me. So yes, George Bush signed something in 2007. End of story

What hell yo. That's not how you construct an honest argument.

That's holding forth on a subject and then expecting him/them to take your word for it.

At least he told you he ain't reading your link. I give him points for improving his clarity.

 

[RussellCasse]

, Russell is a troll

Since you feel it important to point out hypocrisy, here is 4 pages of you complaining about being called names, mostly when no one called you a name.

Search results for query: Name calling

florida.forums.rivals.com

The one I like most is this one….

“ 100%. Name calling means you won.”

OT: Lebron James son, Bronny James Suffers Cardiac Arrest

Making sure we follow the Constitution of the United States of America truly does not make you a snowflake, son. It means you are a REAL American. VERY happy to educate the dumb. And..your welcome. CRYING??? No....that is EXACTLY how you lefties EARNED that name the night President Trump was...

florida.forums.rivals.com

I guess I won. Again.

💊

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Without seeing the back and forth:

yes SCOTUS needs ethics reform. Clarence Thomas has flaunted it.

Yes Biden is worse.

Yes the biggest reform needed is insider trading which Pelosi blocked because that’s how she has made 10s of millions of dollars

 

[Orangeclad]

Ahhhh. Name calling and projecting. All in one sentence. Delicious.

If my name were kalimgoodman I probably would have reported you already.

It’s a nice attempt at the end of your post to cuddle up to people so that you aren’t the 1 I described above.

Desperate for validation much?

This is a perfect example of how disingenious he is with his debate tactic. He scolds you that the thread is SCOTUS ethics reforms and not Thomas ethics reforms, but trashes Thomas as his example, instead of using both Thomas and a justice from the left like Stephen Breyer who had hundreds of subsidized trips. But no, he singles out the guy from the right. But that's his style.

 

[Orangeclad]

Kalim, the republicans tried to get you what you want, but I guess you didn't know that because I am SURE you would have mentioned it.

Grassley, Sensenbrenner See Need for Inspector General for the Judiciary | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Grassley, Sensenbrenner See Need for Inspector General for the Judiciary WASHINGTON ---...

www.grassley.senate.gov

 

[kalimgoodman]

What the hell yo. That's not how you construct an honest argument.

That's holding forth on a subject and then expecting him/them to take your word for it.

The purpose of discussion is to state your case and then defend it. Against ALL comers.

I'm not going to call you names, but I am damn sure going to hold you accountable for what you say. I am dissappointed AF in you man.

That's fair to hold me accountable but if you follow that conversation, you'll see the attempt to jump all over the place. I will defend my post and that's what I was doing. I was talking about my link and then he wanted to switch it to his link without discussing mine. That's his style. I just wasn't for it today.

 

[LordofallSocks]

That's fair to hold me accountable but if you follow that conversation, you'll see the attempt to jump all over the place. I will defend my post and that's what I was doing. I was talking about my link and then he wanted to switch it to his link without discussing mine. That's his style. I just wasn't for it today.

You deal with tangential arguments after you deal with the crux of their counter.

Discussions are organic and fluid in this space, this ain't swamp talk.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Kalim, the republicans tried to get you what you want, but I guess you didn't know that because I am SURE you would have mentioned it.

Grassley, Sensenbrenner See Need for Inspector General for the Judiciary | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Grassley, Sensenbrenner See Need for Inspector General for the Judiciary WASHINGTON ---...

www.grassley.senate.gov

I don't believe that i ever criticized any party for not doing it. I just think that we should need it.

You're just angry all the time. You're mad when you get an L, or no concession or no acknowledgment. Then you're mad when you get a W, a concession and an acknowledgment. Nothing satisfies you.
If you want to think you have won this thread, I'm good with that, with no problem. I am only speaking for me. So yes, George Bush signed something in 2007. End of story.

And tell me where I admitted I am a bad faith debater as you say in 168.

I knew were going to say when did you admit it. You really don't remember our conversation to well. Then after I tell you when, you'll ignore it, claim to never see it all while saying that I never answer. You really do the same thing over and over. Well you admitted it when you criticized Lord for conceding something. I know you claims it was a joke but I don't believe that.

 

[kalimgoodman]

You deal with tangential arguments after you deal with the crux of their counter.

Discussions are organic and fluid in this space, this ain't swamp talk.

I don't agree. As I said in my example. If I comment on the sky being blue, he'll reply about airplanes then keep saying that he is owning me on airplanes when I was just talking about the sky.

Basically, he ignores my topics and talks about his. To criticize me for not always allowing his tactics is unfortunate.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Since you feel it important to point out hypocrisy, here is 4 pages of you complaining about being called names, mostly when no one called you a name.

Search results for query: Name calling

florida.forums.rivals.com

The one I like most is this one….

“ 100%. Name calling means you won.”

OT: Lebron James son, Bronny James Suffers Cardiac Arrest

Making sure we follow the Constitution of the United States of America truly does not make you a snowflake, son. It means you are a REAL American. VERY happy to educate the dumb. And..your welcome. CRYING??? No....that is EXACTLY how you lefties EARNED that name the night President Trump was...

florida.forums.rivals.com

I guess I won. Again.

💊

Trolling is not calling names. It is an act, an act that isn't allowed. I believe that you're trolling me and you seek to troll me. Please report that I called you a troll, so Jason could determine if you're actually trolling. I KNOW you don't want that 😂. Nice try.

I know you try to take the literally words for "name calling" to defend yourself. Like calling you a Republican, hypocrite or libertarian is by definition "name calling" but that is not what Jason meant and you know that.

Post in thread 'This is the Deal: PLEASE READ' https://florida.forums.rivals.com/threads/this-is-the-deal-please-read.124969/post-2629506

 

[LordofallSocks]

I don't agree. As I said in my example. If I comment on the sky being blue, he'll reply about airplanes then keep saying that he is owning me on airplanes when I was just talking about the sky.

Basically, he ignores my topics and talks about his. To criticize me for not always allowing his tactics is unfortunate.

For the purposes of this discussion, initially you brought Thomas as the vanguard of your argument. The expected whataboutism followed with examples of judicial malfeasance from other members of the bench.

Your initial argument wasn't judicial reform across the board it was that Thomas was corrupt and SCOTUS should no bear even a hint of such.

if corruption is bad, mkay, then it follows that the head of the executive branch being corrupt is also bad, mkay.

Tangential, but not unrelated.

The reason you are confused about what's he's talking about is you're intentionally choosing to disregard the associations he drew for you.

That's obfuscation on your part not his.

Read the link to get the jist of his argument and if it's tangential or irrelevant then say so.

 

[kalimgoodman]

For the purposes of this discussion, initially you brought Thomas as the vanguard of your argument. The expected whataboutism followed with examples of judicial malfeasance from other members of the bench.

Your initial argument wasn't judicial reform across the board it was that Thomas was corrupt and SCOTUS should no bear even a hint of such.

if corruption is bad, mkay, then it follows that the head of the executive branch being corrupt is also bad, mkay.

Tangential, but not unrelated.

The reason you are confused about what's he's talking about is you're intentionally choosing to disregard the associations he drew for you.

That's obfuscation on your part not his.

Read the link to get the jist of his argument and if it's tangential or irrelevant then say so.

The title is "even more reasons". I even said that left is bad in post 3. So I conceded that all justices have issues. I never said it was ONLY Thomas.

His link was talking about something Biden will do on Monday. I knew that it didn't have anything to do with the conversation. I clicked on it because of you and it confirmed my initial assessment and account, thanks Lord haha.

Question to you. Do you understand the difference in why I deem corrupted appointed officials more dangerous and problematic than elected officials?

 

[Orangeclad]

I don't believe that i ever criticized any party for not doing it. I just think that we should need it.


I knew were going to say when did you admit it. You really don't remember our conversation to well. Then after I tell you when, you'll ignore it, claim to never see it all while saying that I never answer. You really do the same thing over and over. Well you admitted it when you criticized Lord for conceding something. I know you claims it was a joke but I don't believe that.

Well,I WAS kidding. I'm not going to tell somebody that I like (Lord) "what's wrong with you" that isn't in a kidding mode. I'm sure he took it as such or would have had the right to tell me otherwise. I don't care if you believe me or not. Just a silly reason to be mad or outraged about something.

 

[Orangeclad]

For the purposes of this discussion, initially you brought Thomas as the vanguard of your argument. The expected whataboutism followed with examples of judicial malfeasance from other members of the bench.

Your initial argument wasn't judicial reform across the board it was that Thomas was corrupt and SCOTUS should no bear even a hint of such.

if corruption is bad, mkay, then it follows that the head of the executive branch being corrupt is also bad, mkay.

Tangential, but not unrelated.

The reason you are confused about what's he's talking about is you're intentionally choosing to disregard the associations he drew for you.

That's obfuscation on your part not his.

Read the link to get the jist of his argument and if it's tangential or irrelevant then say so.

Excellent summation and I hope Kalim accepts the validity of the points.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Well,I WAS kidding. I'm not going to tell somebody that I like (Lord) "what's wrong with you" that isn't in a kidding mode. I'm sure he took it as such or would have had the right to tell me otherwise. I don't care if you believe me or not. Just a silly reason to be mad or outraged about something.

Let me rephrase. I believe you were kidding around with him, I don't think you were kidding about your thoughts. I believe that because of your history.

Orange, I don't dislike you. So please stop thinking that I do or I'm angry at you. You are actually not one of the ones that annoy me. You're not even top 5.

 

[Orangeclad]

Let me rephrase. I believe you were kidding around with him, I don't think you were kidding about your thoughts. I believe that because of your history.

Orange, I don't dislike you. So please stop thinking that I do or I'm angry at you. You are actually not one of the ones that annoy me. You're not even top 5.

Now I'm insulted that I'm not top 5. I AM kidding.
We can go back to debating and arguing.

 

[LordofallSocks]

The title is "even more reasons". I even said that left is bad in post 3. So I conceded that all justices have issues. I never said it was ONLY Thomas.

His link was talking about something Biden will do on Monday. I knew that it didn't have anything to do with the conversation. I clicked on it because of you and it confirmed my initial assessment and account, thanks Lord haha.

How hard was that? And it keeps your integrity intact as a bonus.

Question to you. Do you understand the difference in why I deem corrupted appointed officials more dangerous and problematic than elected officials?

Yes because they're damn nigh impossible to remove.

 

[Mdfgator]

I didn't comment on your link. I never read it and won't. I was just speaking to CNN and Fox article that I posted. How they both explained how Biden forgave those student loans. I actually ignored that post by you because it was your attempt to switch topics. The topic was how Biden forgave those loans (the past).

It's funny because you always reply to what you want to reply but I not what I said. If I say the sky is blue, you'll reply about birds and airplanes 😂. That's why I'm always confused about wtf you're talking about.

all stimi should be looked upon in a negative light, the issue with the idiots focusing their peas on student loans as opposed to the trillions that go out via the fed and other non democratic methods is the issue, yes student loans should be paid back and yes mortgage rates should not be subsidized asset prices shouldnt be pumped up taxes on income need to be paid, the list is a mile long, student loans is a side show not worth my time. we have a nation full of entitled delusional puffer fish that need to be exposed to a bit of reality.

 

[kalimgoodman]

How hard was that? And it keeps your integrity intact as a bonus.

Yes because they're damn nigh impossible to remove.

Exactly, you understand but that makes me an hypocrite apparently 🤷🏽‍♂️.

 

[RussellCasse]

Trolling is not calling names. It is an act, an act that isn't allowed. I believe that you're trolling me and you seek to troll me. Please report that I called you a troll, so Jason could determine if you're actually trolling. I KNOW you don't want that 😂. Nice try.

I know you try to take the literally words for "name calling" to defend yourself. Like calling you a Republican, hypocrite or libertarian is by definition "name calling" but that is not what Jason meant and you know that.

Post in thread 'This is the Deal: PLEASE READ' https://florida.forums.rivals.com/threads/this-is-the-deal-please-read.124969/post-2629506

Calling someone a troll, IS calling names. If you feel it isn’t then tag Fresno and ask. This is why you aren’t taken seriously.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Calling someone a troll, IS calling names. If you feel it isn’t then tag Fresno and ask. This is why yoy aren’t taken seriously.

Did you read Jason reply that I attached? Fatman asked that question directly. He didn't say that it is.

 

[Mdfgator]

Calling someone a troll, IS calling names. If you feel it isn’t then tag Fresno and ask. This is why yoy aren’t taken seriously.

you sheep do nothing but call people names, you like a grade school click of mean girls. Pathetic. LOW T is an easy enough thing to handle now a days...

 

[RussellCasse]

Did you read Jason reply that I attached? Fatman asked that question directly. He didn't say that it is.

And he didn’t say it wasn’t either. So what’s your point?

And you have difficulty again with reading. Big time. He asked if troll was a name or description, and Jason didn’t answer.

If I call someone a troll, is that name calling?Yes it is. And you know it is. Which is why in your first post you were trying to be slick by saying “trolling” isn’ name calling.

The fact you are trying to obfuscate on this is again, why you aren’t taken seriously.


Let me help:

If someone says you ARE a TROLL. Then they just called you a troll (a name)

If I say you are trolling, then I am talking about an action.

You’re just pissed because your hypocrisy was pointed out once again. I don’t care about being called a name, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

What we have just confirmed is that sentence structure and comprehension again evades you.

Be better

💊

 

[Mdfgator]

And he didn’t say it wasn’t either. So what’s your point?

And you have difficulty again with reading. Big time. He asked if troll was a name or description.

If I call someone a troll, is that name calling?Yes it is. And you know it is. Which is why in your first post you were trying to be slick by saying “trolling” isn’ name calling.

The fact you are trying to obfuscate on this is again, why you aren’t taken seriously.


Let me help:

If someone says you ARE a TROLL. Then they just called you a troll (a name)

If I say you are trolling, then I am talking about an action.

You’re just pissed because your hypocrisy was pointed out once again.

What we have just confirmed is that sentence structure and comprehension again evades you.

Be better

💊

stop your whining, be a man and stand on your own two feet you worthless bible thumper.

 

[kalimgoodman]

And he didn’t say it wasn’t either. So what’s your point?

And you have difficulty again with reading. Big time. He asked if troll was a name or description.

If I call someone a troll, is that name calling?Yes it is. And you know it is. Which is why in your first post you were trying to be slick by saying “trolling” isn’ name calling.

The fact you are trying to obfuscate on this is again, why you aren’t taken seriously.


Let me help:

If someone says you ARE a TROLL. Then you just called them a troll (a name)

If I say you are trolling, then I am talking about an action.

You’re just pissed because your hypocrisy was pointed out once again.

What we have just confirmed is that sentence structure and comprehension again evades you.

Be better

💊

I don't think it is but if you want clarity, we can ask. I don't want you to be accusing me of something.

Ultimately, it's not your call or mine.

 

[kalimgoodman]

you sheep do nothing but call people names, you like a grade school click of mean girls. Pathetic. LOW T is an easy enough thing to handle now a days...

In all seriousness, he thinks nobody notices the stuff that he does. He is the one that brought up reporting people but I know he doesn't want the MODs looking into his post.

 

[RussellCasse]

I don't think it is but if you want clarity, we can ask. I don't want you to be accusing me of something.

Ultimately, it's not your call or mine.

How about we just agree then. If saying someone is a troll isn’t name calling….

Then neither is saying someone is an idiot, an asshole, etc. cool? Because it’s the same language being used with the only differentiation being the noun used.

Deal?

Oh, I don’t care if you want to be accused or not. Deal with it.

 

[LordofallSocks]

you sheep do nothing but call people names, you like a grade school click of mean girls. Pathetic. LOW T is an easy enough thing to handle now a days...

yeah, cuz sheep is complimentary. 😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Mdfgator]

In all seriousness, he thinks nobody notices the stuff that he does. He is the one that brought up reporting people but I know he doesn't want the MODs looking into his post.

he is just like the rest of the girls here, once they feel they cant overwhelm those that are not idiotic they try to get them banned. As i have said, LOW T is an easy thing to address now.

 

[Mdfgator]

yeah, cuz sheep is complimentary. 😂😂😂😂😂

youre right, i am being nice when i call these people sheep, they are far more evil than a little old sheep.