Hunter: New Felony . Sn3, Episode One

@averagejoe1 said
@AverageJoe1
Hey, Marauder...YOu never answered my question above,,,,You admonish me(para #2, page 2 above) for reaching a conclusion about guilt or innocence, but you never say that about Sonhouse who is walking around with a knotted rope looking for the 'guilty' Trump, when he's been found guilty of nothing. Why do you fault me, but you do not fault the really level-minded Sonhouse!?!?

C'mon, Marauder, entertain us with an answer 🤔 🤔 🤔

Why are you trying to change the subject in a thread YOU started?

Talking about Trump is off-topic here, so why should I respond to posts that are off-topic?

@no1marauder said
Why are you trying to change the subject in a thread YOU started?

Talking about Trump is off-topic here, so why should I respond to posts that are off-topic?

Ok, I do veer off here, as you have made me a laughing stock of the Forum!!!! Making me look like a fool for suggesting that Hunter is guilty without knowing all the facts...Which I did NOT! So, in defending myself in a segue, I merely ask you the simplest of hypocrisy-queries. Actually, a rather cool observation. Here it is again.
How can you lay some good 'ole liberal fault on me, suggesting that I should wait until the jury returns with its verdict, but you let the wild-eyed Sonhouse go nuts for months about the guilty-as-sin Trump (no adjudications) without saying a word about Sonhouse. Is it the liberal 'group' thing?
C'mon, Marauder, you can do this. Entertain the Forum!!! You cannot, and will not, explain it.

@averagejoe1 said
I was being sarcastic

But you, in an earlier post, announced that you were restricting yourself from then on to FACTS. Not sarcasm, not supposition, just FACTS.

Apparently you don't understand what facts are. Maybe you enjoy telling lies. Maybe you were out sick when the meaning of "fact" was explained in grammar school.

@handyandy said
But you, in an earlier post, announced that you were restricting yourself from then on to FACTS. Not sarcasm, not supposition, just FACTS.

Apparently you don't understand what facts are. Maybe you enjoy telling lies. Maybe you were out sick when the meaning of "fact" was explained in grammar school.

The FACT was that the news reported a Fact that Hunter was involved in a brand new investigation where they are on his ass for having lied on a gun application. Didn't you read my post? I found it indeed plausible, given that he was a druggie, last I heard, kicked off the ship, photos of him with a weed pipe (?), naked, etc. So, since plausible, AvgJOE thought he would put it out there for y'all to discuss at your group gatherings.
No good deed does unpunished.!! 😞 So, you can pretend and wrinkle all this up if it makes you happy, I am simply correct in this scenario, and you, Handy, are way off base. The FACT was the report,....the FACT was NOT that he is, or that I found him to be, guilty. Maybe we have a grammar problem??
I cant believe you will keep up this vacuous line of not-reason.
Hey, can you help Marauder tell us why he jumped me for seeming to judge Hunter with no facts, no adjudication, but lets the Sonhouse get away with finding Trump guilty, when he is guilty of nothing. Maybe write Marauder a PM and give him some advice, before he goes over to a Duchess thread?

@handyandy said
But you, in an earlier post, announced that you were restricting yourself from then on to FACTS. Not sarcasm, not supposition, just FACTS.

Apparently you don't understand what facts are. Maybe you enjoy telling lies. Maybe you were out sick when the meaning of "fact" was explained in grammar school.

He's clearly going by the Trump definition of 'fact'.