This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TexChik · F
Doubtful he would have mentioned it if it were not true.
AwesomusPrime · 36-40, M
@TexChik So basically your reasoning is its true because he said it
TexChik · F
@AwesomusPrime And you have proof he was lying? He's not a lib...so there's already that.
AwesomusPrime · 36-40, M
@TexChik The burden of proof is on Hegseth. He’s the one making claims while withholding details.
And with a deeply unpopular war underway, it’s not unreasonable to question messaging that appears designed to sell it.
He isn’t a liberal, you say. Neither is Bondi , who previously claimed she had a certain list on her desk ready to go, only to later say that list didn’t exist.
Apparently, consistency matters less when you can simply assert you’re not a liberal.
And with a deeply unpopular war underway, it’s not unreasonable to question messaging that appears designed to sell it.
He isn’t a liberal, you say. Neither is Bondi , who previously claimed she had a certain list on her desk ready to go, only to later say that list didn’t exist.
Apparently, consistency matters less when you can simply assert you’re not a liberal.
TexChik · F
@AwesomusPrime Secretary Hegseth's integrity is beyond reproach, and withholding details from a corrupt and untrustworthy media is common sense. You made the claim he was lying. Prove it.
AwesomusPrime · 36-40, M
@TexChik You’re assuming his integrity is “beyond reproach” without evidence, then using that assumption to justify him withholding evidence. That’s circular reasoning.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with how arguments work. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If someone makes a claim but refuses to provide details, skepticism should follow, at least if you’re a rational adult with basic critical-thinking skills.
Ironically, defending claims purely on trust is exactly the kind of behavior the term “sheeple” was meant to criticise, and if I remember correctly, a term the right used to throw at liberals.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with how arguments work. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If someone makes a claim but refuses to provide details, skepticism should follow, at least if you’re a rational adult with basic critical-thinking skills.
Ironically, defending claims purely on trust is exactly the kind of behavior the term “sheeple” was meant to criticise, and if I remember correctly, a term the right used to throw at liberals.
TexChik · F
@AwesomusPrime you are trying to impugn and slander his integrity without evidence... AKA: LYING as libs love to do,
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment






