Total posts: 2,186
He was looking into it, but has to spend more time defending himself from malicious false accusations bombsrded upon him by corrupt democrats, the corrupt FBI (to include the agent recently arrested with ties to the Biden family), and the Clintons; not to mention Biden Inc.
Everything Biden does and has done has been riding the coattails of what Trump sought to do, did do but reversed when he came into office and wants to backpedal on to claim the credit for himself, and almost did but couldn’t (like bank fees, etc at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead
Can’t say I’ll mis PW.
Is IWantRosevelAgain next?
Created:
Posted in:
Trump did it first: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000539/pdf/DCPD-202000539.pdf
Biden reversed it:
Now Biden wants to claim credit for what Trump already did, that which he refereed, and now uses his attempt to reinstate it as a gavel upon republicans?
Please. What a joke. What’s even more hilarious is the OC/OP’s author whining about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
YouTube removed it for violating terms on hate speech.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Says the denialist who refuses to see the articulate words connected together making sound arguments…in other words, your reading comprehension skills are found wanting.
I will NEVER give you “cliff notes” to cited sources. That’s why they have introductory paragraphs and conclusion paragraphs. Quick and easy speed read to get the gist of the cited source. Again, you’re just a self-righteous lazy obnoxious intellectual coward.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yet again, more outstanding displays of intellectual cowardice. Bravo!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Once again, you clearly FAILED to look at the cited links given to you.
And I have explained it. You just conveniently ignored (denied) it.
Hint: col·lu·sion
noun
- secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Another one: duress
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Wrong.
The government cannot violate the first amendment, period. Even when they ask someone else to do it for them. It’s still under their direction. Your analogous is bunk. You clearly don’t understand how the law works.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ah but it is skin off our backs when they cry racism for how they talk and laws are made to protect their shitty speaking skills.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A private company deciding to fulfill the government’s request is not breaking the law.
Yea it is.
That’s like saying your BF asked you to drive him to the bank for a transaction, decided to fulfill their request and drive them to the bank. They ask you to wait with the car running while they run inside. They go inside and come running out with three large bags. Gets in your car and they yell “DRIVE!” Guess what, you just committing a felony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
And?
None of what I said is factually inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Where did I say they shouldn't get justice too?
It’s directly implied by your very specific narrow view of your divisive comment(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What I think is actually sad is there was no real punishment given to the slave owners, no revenge lashing, no lynching of KKK, nothing really.
Slave owners = African former slaves themselves you know. Not all of the tiny % of southern slave owners were all white Europeans, didn’t ya know!?!
And what about the slave collectors and seller sim Africa? Some of the most notorious ones were African females.
Spanish and Dutch Captains and their crew who brought them here. What about them?
KKK? Please. What about the Black Panthers and organized black crime families and gangs in the 70s?
What about all the black murderers of innocent white people over the past four decades?
They basically got away with just going sorry bruh. These were people that force bred blacks and treated them like animals.
And what do you think the leaders of the Kingdom of Ashanti and that female warrior tribe depicted in that The Woman King movie did when they captured their own countrymen and sold them into slavery? They didn’t feed them tea and crumpets for fucks sake.
Your selective outrage is laughable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Doesn’t work that way.
I’m not a racist. You ignant sumbitch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
--> @TWS1405_2
I see, so what months do you dedicate to black history? What days or weeks?
What part of my post didn’t you understand???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Like Morgan Freeman said…don’t relegate my history to a single month.
All history is our history. No single day, month or year belongs to anyone, nor should it be given to any single group of people either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Who, precisely, is “we” in that vague question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
That's probably because you're a fucking racist.
The bitches who scream “you’re a racist” the loudest, are the tied and TRUE racists.
Truth ≠ racism.
Never has.
Never will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And yet when it’s reported, the left hates the truth because truth sounds like hate to them, and you’re oft given the label of racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Good idea with your historical citation to atrocities in Africa by Africans. Female genital mutilation. Slavery. Genocide. Civil wars. Rampant famine. Rapists. The list is long.
Be curious to see some reports on the 11.7million Africans taken to the Caribbean islands and South America. The world certainly doesn’t hear a peep about them and their ancestors living today. The ancestors of the 335k Africans brought to America sure have lots to bitch and whine much ado about nothing. And they make sure everyone knows it, feels it (rioting, looting, murdering, intraracial crime, so on and so forth), and the world knows it too. Yet it’s 🦗 about blacks in the aforementioned areas of the western world.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When the social media platforms work in concert with the government, that’s collusion. Translation: those private companies conspired with the government to violate Americans freedom of speech, right to redress the government with grievances and legitimate criticism via those social media platforms. In doing so it had an impact on the 2020 election results. That’s criminal anyway you slice it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He and I have clashed since day one of him showing up here to troll his bs. I don’t troll on purpose. Let’s get that straight. He does.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
And the whiny baby left wingers done whine…at all?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
-->@TWS1405_2No, let’s not since it is completely redundant to the definitions I already provided (and to wit you clearly ignored)!You provided that born= to person hood, not the exact definition of it.And why not? I thought definitions were important.
"You provided that born= (sic) to person hood (sic), not the exact definition."
Yes, it is to the proverbial "T"! Personhood is one word, not two. More evidence to your lack of grammar and reading comprehension skills.
Redundantly.......
First, it is NOT circular reasoning It’s a statement of fact.nounthe state or fact of being a person.This definition alone affirms my statement. Their equation is clearly stated within the term itself and how it is defined…the state or fact OF BEING [A] PERSON!1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infantnounHuman, individualpersonhood
Then you continue to regurgitate this garbage:
No, it was and remains a completely and utterly stupid question. I mean really, the answer is within the question itself and from that which was already provided in/by the definitions given. Tripling + down on this stupid question is unremarkable.It's a fair question, not a stupid one. And even if it was, wouldn't you the "authority of abortion" be able to answer such a "dumb" question?
NO, it's a STUPID question.
Wrong! A debate can always be between more than two people. And as evidenced by all the threads, more than two people get involved. If no one is supporting either one of us it is clearly because they know one of us is correct and the other is not and nothing more need be said. It’s all up to the reader to decide. That being said, you have not debunked any of my argued factually accurate and easily verifiable positions.I have debunked them, you just call the answers stupid, and go on about your day, without a care in the world. You deny every argument that I make without any evidence to back you up.
You have NOT debunked them. Delusions of grandeur. If you can prove otherwise, I will concede.
NO! I provide fact based rebuttals to your nonsensical uneducated drivel, and when you repeat that drivel it becomes patently clear engaging you on this subject it futile. It’s tantamount to beating the proverbial dead horse. And you ARE the dead horse in this scenario. Own it.Your rebuttals are calling my answers stupid. Thats not a rebuttal.
It is a rebuttal. You have NOT provided any rebuttal to mine that discredit it. Period. Fact. Period.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If this is how the person who published these files is characterizing the argument, you’ve already lost it. Requesting that Twitter remove files and Twitter agreeing to remove those files is in no way a violation of free speech
Doing it at the behest (bidding) of government agencies is government having an influence over free speech on the platforms. It doesn’t matter if they are a privately owned company. It’s the government telling them what to do and how to do it that’s the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
@TWS1405_2Technically and biological reality is one viable fetus is pending birth, which upon birth (full extraction or expulsion from the womb (outside of her body), would be [a] person (singular).Ok, so it's fine for the mother to chop the baby in half, while she is extracting it from her birth canal, because it's not fully birthed yet.......Goodluck arguing that.
Strawman fallacy. 🤦
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So lets look of the definition of a born person.
No, let’s not since it is completely redundant to the definitions I already provided (and to wit you clearly ignored)!
So your saying:A baby coming out of a mother's' bodys = the state or condition of being a person/individual human beingSo the question: "wait, so you mean a baby one second before birth isn’t a person?" is a fair question.
No, it was and remains a completely and utterly stupid question. I mean really, the answer is within the question itself and from that which was already provided in/by the definitions given. Tripling + down on this stupid question is unremarkable.
Your own written posts are my evidence you ignorant petulant child. Your own words. Period. Fact. Period. And every time you reply to me, and others, on this topic, you consistently prove me correct and you a continued fool on the subject.How so? No one seems to be defending your position. Neither has anyone done the same for me, but that is because DEBATING is supposed to be between two people.
Wrong! A debate can always be between more than two people. And as evidenced by all the threads, more than two people get involved. If no one is supporting either one of us it is clearly because they know one of us is correct and the other is not and nothing more need be said. It’s all up to the reader to decide. That being said, you have not debunked any of my argued factually accurate and easily verifiable positions.
And this is how you give up every time. You complain that I am uneducated, and don't know what I am talking about because of my age, so you leave the argument, thinking that everyone agrees with you, when in truth they haven't.I am not a dead horse, very much the opposite. The only dead horse here is the one that is too tired and confused, and stubborn to argue rationally.Would you like me to make a forum just between you and me, arguing this instead of a proper debate, or would you like to do a formal debate. If you "the all knowing on abortion" have so much proof to prove me wrong, then lay it all out on the table. Beat me.
NO! I provide fact based rebuttals to your nonsensical uneducated drivel, and when you repeat that drivel it becomes patently clear engaging you on this subject it futile. It’s tantamount to beating the proverbial dead horse. And you ARE the dead horse in this scenario. Own it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s not just the classified documents. It’s the coexisting other evidence working against him and his family.
Hunter’s laptop and the link of classified documents to it.
Hunter’s involvement in the Ukrainian bank Biden got caught on a phone call directing an official to cooperate in getting that bank shut down because it was the bank that money was funneled through between Biden Inc and the Ukrainians they were involved with.
The FBI agent that was arrested for his espionage and treason who is directly tied to the Biden family.
It’s getting worse and worse for Biden and his POS corrupt family.
Why the GOP House hasn’t jump started a huge investigation to get his sorry ass impeached, and I mean impeached, as in kicked out of office (forced to resign), which in turn could also turn to prove that the 2020 election was in fact, rigged, to further benefit Biden Inc.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
--> @TWS1405_2Personhood = [a] born person.[A] born person = personhood.This is totally invalid. Do you not see the circular definition here?Personhood equates born person, and a born person equates to Personhood.So you can't be a born person without personhood, and you can't have personhood without being born.Ok so what defines that. You are suggesting they equate, I am asking why they equate.personhood[ pur-suhn-hood ]SHOW IPA
First, it is NOT circular reasoning It’s a statement of fact.
noun
the state or fact of being a person.
This definition alone affirms my statement. Their equation is clearly stated within the term itself and how it is defined…the state or fact OF BEING [A] PERSON!
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
noun
Human, individual
personhood
You ask stupid questions, like “wait, so you mean a baby one second before birth isn’t a person?” 🤦♂️ JFC!! That’s not assuming a position, that’s just ducking dumbIt's not a stupid question, it's a fair question. I wasn't hiding behind it. It is a really simple question that you don't want to answer, because you know where I am going to go in the argument, and you can't argue that.
Yes, it [is] A stupid question. Words have very specific meanings dictated by the context in which they are used. If you do not comprehend the term birth, birthed, expulsion, extraction let alone person = personhood, asking how and why the latter equates = a patently asinine stupid question. Asking it makes you look like an ignorant (uneducated) fool. A fact you KEEP doubling and tripling down on.
I don’t have to answer it, but I just did. Stating the FUCKING OBVIOUS in doing so. Common knowledge. In fact. And no, I do not know where you are going with your stupid question. I am not psychic.
You consistently ask dumb questions in this debate/discussion. And you clearly don’t understand the meaning to terms with obvious meaning within the context of this debate/discussion. Like born, birth, birthed, extraction, expulsion, so on and so forth.I ask those questions, because everyone has a different outlook on how to specify those defined words. I am asking you specifically how you do it, so I can start from there, and work my way up. You just don't like that I keep proving you wrong on every pitstop of false contradicting definitions that you take.Also this is not a debate/discussion. It is you complaining about me being wrong with no proof, and being too prideful to even debate.
Again, 🤦🏼♂️, words have specific meanings dictated upon the context in which they are used. No one has any free-form outlook on what the definition of a term is as used by another. The context of the statement in which the term is used is what dictates the definition of that term. Work your way up… ROTFLMAO!!!
You haven’t proven me wrong on anything in any forum discussion within DART. Not a single one. Your delusions of grandeur is on par with your psychological projection.
Your own written posts are my evidence you ignorant petulant child. Your own words. Period. Fact. Period. And every time you reply to me, and others, on this topic, you consistently prove me correct and you a continued fool on the subject.
your continued denialism, banality, and comments lacked throughout the abortion topics (to include your own threads) = my evidence of your loss.Keep displaying that intellectual cowardice.You have no evidence of this though. You claim you do, yet you don't provide any.I am not a coward. I am standing here waiting for you argue. You are the one deflecting.Let's end this civilly in a debate, where we can put all of our facts onto the table. You are a great debater, and a smart guy. Let's be civil about this and end our disagreement civilly.
What part of what I have said, AD NAUSEUM, of the FACT that YOUR OWN WORDS and submitted in comments IS MY PROOF!!! You prove with each and every reply just how ignorant you are of the subject matter, AND your patent lack of reading comprehension skills.
I NEVER called you [a] coward, the term used is “intellectual cowardice,” and in context it is an adjective describing your behavior, it’s not [a] noun. See…more evidence of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
Until you can demonstrate some measure of intelligence and reading comprehension skills…I just do not want to waste my time and effort beating a dead horse, as I continuously do here within the forums with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
--> @TWS1405_2Personhood = [a] born “person.”Here end of the lesson.So babys one second before leaving the womb are not people?
Your prose leaves a lot to be desired.
Technically and biological reality is one viable fetus is pending birth, which upon birth (full extraction or expulsion from the womb (outside of her body), would be [a] person (singular). And do not reply with “what about twins, triplets, so on and so forth?” That would be an asinine semantics argument given the fact that the end result for each individual viable fetus = the same answer. Singular births is more common than twins or more. So for the sake of any subsequent anticipated stupid retorts, just read this as what the reality of a pregnancy is, a singular birth. All else (twins or more viable fetuses) equals the same as the singular birth. So let me fix it for you:
“So a baby about to be birthed, one second before leaving the woman, that baby is not a person?”
No, it is not. The law as well as society (e.g. cultural norms, social-psychology) dictate and accept that upon birth, not only is personhood bestowed upon the viable fetus, but so is the law - all rights, privileges and equal protections thereof.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.Twitter Files from Elon Musk.The Twitter files did not show anything you are claiming it did.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-publisher-government-in-censorship-business-huge-way.amp
And it’s not just Twitter. FascistBook did it too.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“So sad. He is a sad little man. Like a small child, he keeps saying how it’s not fair - that everyone is a against him. When he reads the statement prepared for him by his lawyers, he sounds like a 5th grader. His supporters are even sadder than Trump. They think if he wins then maybe they aren’t the losers that know they are.”
Your psychological projection knows no bounds. 🙄
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You did lose, and you continue to lose.
I ask questions, and repeat them to be direct so it won't seem like I am assuming another person's position.
Personhood = [a] born person.
[A] born person = personhood.
you ask stupid questions, like “wait, so you mean a baby one second before birth isn’t a person?” 🤦♂️ JFC!! That’s not assuming a position, that’s just ducking dumb.
You consistently ask dumb questions in this debate/discussion. And you clearly don’t understand the meaning to terms with obvious meaning within the context of this debate/discussion. Like born, birth, birthed, extraction, expulsion, so on and so forth.
your continued denialism, banality, and comments lacked throughout the abortion topics (to include your own threads) = my evidence of your loss.
Keep displaying that intellectual cowardice.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The thread is evidence of you losing.
Your flagrant ignorance of the subject is what I found irritating.
I mean really, FFS!! In another threat I made a crystal clear statement about personhood and you reply with yet another fucking stupid question. It’s like, do you not read what other people write? What part of the word born do you not understand! It’s stupid statements/questions like that proving it would be an exercise in futility to get into a debate with you on abortion. You’re not obtuse on purpose, you really are that dense when it comes to this subject. Which is so frustrating because you can appear so intelligent and articulate in so many other discussions.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What law was I supposed to enforce let alone uphold? I’ve been out of LE for more than a decade. And I wasn’t there. So I couldn’t enforce let alone uphold anything.
You clearly didn’t research the video by Officer Tatum. He describes the use of force continuum. Even Anthony Brian Logan knows of this and he’s not a cop. At least he demonstrates a measure of common sense in his analysis.
People lie and fake shit all the time to get the upper hand in getting away from police. Cops cannot afford to make any mistakes by being too lenient. It gets them seriously harmed if not killed.
Created:
Posted in:
Personhood = [a] born “person.”
Here end of the lesson.
Created:
Officer B. Tatum breaks it down succinctly. And it’s exactly what I’ve said for years. Prove him wrong. Prove me wrong.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You did lose.
Period.
Fact.
Period.
Denialist.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No. Dipshit. Go back and read the threads YOU fucking started and LOST!! Damn ignoramus pos that you are on this subject.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
Obtuse. Not bride. Damn autocorrect.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
You being so bride on purpose or are you really that dense? Go back and read what I posted, ffs 🤦!
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
The only time I’d accept a final decision is if and when the Supreme Court says so. Even then, they’re only human too and oft err.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
I am pro 2A. And no, I wouldn’t resist. Complaints come after the arrest. Lawsuits filed in federal court for an unconstitutional law.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
What governments?
Local? (Municipal)
State?
Federal?
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
Clearly your are ignorant of the FACT that there are several agencies right now refusing to enforce laws unconstitutionally passed by some state legislatures regarding their draconian gun control measure.
Not all law enforcement agencies blindly follow the state in enforcing the law(s). Same goes for some DA offices too (hint: plea).
And clarify what American institution (or institutions) you keep referring to.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
WTF! How do you go from your disproven claim to claiming what I think about the institutions? Talk about shifting the goal posts (ie - non sequitur)! 🤦♂️
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
Your argument is you can't question the police. This means that you support every authoritarian
Strawman. I never said you can’t ever question police actions, because you can after the fact; and I made that perfectly clear. There is a time and place for questioning police, and it’s not during the initial contact but after.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Go back and re-read the threads you started and where you were obviously disproven in your poorly argued position. I am not going to repeat myself here when all has been written and posted. It is self-evident that you lost and simply cannot hold your own in a discussion on the topic. So it is to you who just needs to sit out on that subject material. Oh, and your psychological projection isn’t evidence of your position either. It’s patent denialism.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I’ve proven you wrong here in the forum. There is no need to repeat myself on the debate side. On the abortion issue you lose. Same as others have proven you wrong on the religious topics you brought up too. Those are two areas you simply have a lot to learn.
As for other topics, you appear to be holding your own. But when it comes to abortion and religion. You couldn’t carry a bedpan of piss without spilling it. So jsut give it a rest, youngling.
Created: