Non-IT News Thread
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well, at least not as racist as Biden, if at all.
Are you insane? I cannot comment on the "as Biden" bit. But if at all? What planet do you live on?
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
-
I was avoiding getting into this bout with @Obsolesce because he's obviously trolling. Just report his post and move on. Make @scottalanmiller deal with it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I was avoiding getting into this bout with @Obsolesce because he's obviously trolling. Just report his post and move on. Make @scottalanmiller deal with it.
If you wanted to avoid getting into with @Obsolesce or anyone for that matter, then why post the comment to begin with?
EDIT: Why is it trolling also? He just made a reply to your comment.
-
It's trolling because he's clearly touched in the head with the reality of the facts and wishes to dispute the obvious.
-
Keep it civil.
The ban stick needs more blood on it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
It's trolling because he's clearly touched in the head with the reality of the facts and wishes to dispute the obvious.
Ahh. I see.
-
-
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Exactly, (as you and most people here know but not the general pubic it seems) is IMHO synonymous with the word indictment. Just charges and nothing else. Although some think impeachment/indictment = guilty.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Irregardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Irregardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
Irregardless isn't a word. The correct word is Regardless.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
regardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
Upvote for this bit.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Exactly, (as you and most people here know but not the general pubic it seems) is IMHO synonymous with the word indictment.
Can you try again and make a coherent sentence? Because this makes no sense
Exactly, is IMHO synonymous with the word indictment.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Irregardless isn't a word. The correct word is Regardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[7] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?" The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[7]
-
@JaredBusch well I'll be damned.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Irregardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
For you and @DustinB3403, kindly help each other with the application of some:
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Irregardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
For you and @DustinB3403, kindly help each other with the application of some:
You appear to be the one trying to push an agenda. I don't care what you do or do not believe politically. Your facts were wrong.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He was not impeached. They tried though.
He was impeached twice. He was not convicted and removed.
I see, accused, process started, but not charged or found guilty of anything.
Irregardless of which President was the cause for the proceedings, you have a severe lack of understanding of what the process actually is.
For you and @DustinB3403, kindly help each other with the application of some:
You appear to be the one trying to push an agenda. I don't care what you do or do not believe politically. Your facts were wrong.
Which facts are wrong?
