Trump in talks with Tulsi Gabbard about future of Defense Department

“I have no need to rebut anything, all the sources he posted are not credible...”

So, refute them. Show he’s wrong. Present a better argument. Because, waxing indignant — as you have done — is no refutation at all. It’s the default of a school kid who runs home when faced with a challenge.

“...how about you first provide a credible source before you demand I rebut anything.”

Nice try, kid. It was YOU who said Timber Rattler’s sources were not credible: Show why they are not credible and support your claim.

Wrong again. Freepers have long held sources like CNN as not credible, numerous other sources as well.

You want to defend sources like the LSM, good luck with that, your ignorance is showing.

Take your weak attempts at sophistry elsewhere, if the sources he listed were anything close to respectable Free Republic would not exist. I do not have to discredited what has already been discredited. You like those sources, you show how they are credible.

Also you ignored what I did offer, please explain how most the media now accepts Ukraine will likely lose after years of the same media emphatically stating Russia was loosing. That sound credible to you?

And let’s just ignore all the covid lies the same media you are defending pushed into the public, yaa credible.

Now tell us all why we should believe what sources such as CNN broadcasts, many of us are waiting... LOL

“Wrong again. Freepers have long held sources like CNN as not credible, numerous other sources as well. You want to defend sources like the LSM, good luck with that, your ignorance is showing.”

Nice try, kid.

The way to rebut is to present evidence to challenge or contest or impugn his evidence; just screeching that his evidence is not credible without presenting evidence of your own to show that, is just grade-school stuff.

“Take your weak attempts at sophistry elsewhere, if the sources he listed were anything close to respectable Free Republic would not exist.”

Sophistry? You use the word; but you don’t know what it means. Tell me how and why my comment was fallacious.

“I do not have to discredited (sic) what has already been discredited. You like those sources, you show how they are credible.”

Again, you assume facts not in evidence, jump to conclusions, and rush to judgment. The source is immaterial; it’s what the source SAID that is (material). The way to refute what the source said, is to present a cogent and unemotional argument against it. Your “just because” negation is childish and reflects the weakness of your response.

“Also you ignored what I did offer, please explain how most the media now accepts Ukraine will likely lose after years of the same media emphatically stating Russia was loosing. That sound credible to you?”

Hyperbole! “...most the media” haven’t “emphatically” stated that Russia was losing; on the contrary, most of the media have said Ukraine had little chance of winning unless it received massive aid and support from outside.

“And let’s just ignore all the covid lies the same media you are defending pushed into the public, yaa credible.”

Again, you assume facts not in evidence, jump to conclusions, and rush to judgment. I am neither defending nor condemning any media, as media have inherent biases unless reporting the weather or sports scores.

“Now tell us all why we should believe what sources such as CNN broadcasts, many of us are waiting... LOL.”

See my comment above.

Now, where is your evidence refuting Timber Rattler’s argument?

Blah Blah Blah A source does not get the benefit of credibility, it must be established. Even worse for your liberal ideological desires is the fact your precious MSM sources have been so discredited as to be a joke. I referenced 4 well known pieces of propaganda about stories your MSM totally lied about.

That is enough to fully discredit the MSM but there are mountains more lies they made publicly as to dismiss those who continue to quote them as some kind of arbiters of truth.
Do you deny Ukraine is losing now
Do you deny that the Trump collusion was a hoax
Do you believe the Hunter laptop is Russian disinfo?
Do you believe covid warranted all the upheaval over the last few years and do you support the clot shot?

I will entertain you only this once more. You stated “The source is immaterial; it’s what the source SAID that is (material).” That could not be more wrong. If a source is known to lie then unless you have a compelling reason to believe what they state it matters not what they state. For instance I can accuse you of being a pedo, I am a source and that is what I said, are you now required to refute me with hard data backed up by credible sources? LOL be careful what you wish for. Your position in the statement is virtually the equivalent of “it is not the truth of the accusation only the seriousness of it that matters.” That, by the the way, is the type of sophistry I see in your posts, typical of leftists, perhaps you are unclear on what the word means ;)

The continued ad hominems show just how lacking your posts are.

In short your posts are comical in their ignorance.

Nice try, kid.

I see you are not refuting the substance of the articles (all four of them); just the outlets that printed them (all four of them).

So, you are either accepting the collective substance, and thus have no need to rebut it; or you do not accept it, and CAN’T rebut it.

The rest of your screed is just juvenile swill.

Grow up, kid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.