Total posts: 2,186
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And yet accurately defining them and spotting them is an entirely different matter where his record is concerned.
I mean really, classifying a valid observation that all can see and affirm, stating same as a clear observation, just does not = an ad hom.
Created:
Posted in:
The Hodge Twins are FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!
Here is their response to Jesse Lee Peterson on Dr Phil and "We need more white babies"
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>You need that 3rd variable in there to kinda see which value outweighs the other value in a certain context. People with the abortion debate can (without biting the bullet) believe RTL>BA or BA>RTL. You need FA in there to see what prevails.
Doubling, tripling down on a fallacy will not make any true.
Abortion is an either or, there is no 3rd variable/option. Period. Fact. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
Here end of the lesson.It’s endeth, genius.Here endeth the lesson. Get it?You remind me of Archie Bunker.
No 💩 Sherlock. God you’re so predictable.
Infamous line in ‘The Untouchables’ spoken by Sean Connery. Seen it a dozen times and spoken it as many times. I just knew you, of all people, would jump all over it if I put end vs endeth. 😂 Still pompous and predictable. 😆
Created:
Oh joy 🙄
Yet another TDS thread spamming the forum. 🤦♂️
Created:
-->
@Barney
Google the dictionary and look up the term “hyperbole.”
Created:
Posted in:
Claiming Shapiro lies without proving it is childish.Talking the way you do is moronic
Of course it does. Always will to the undereducated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Claiming someone twists the truth and lies without proving it is so easy even an amoeba could do it. Takes zero intellectual intelligence to do it.
Proving someone you claim twists the truth and lies takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence.
So far after one too many retorts all you’ve proven is that you are = to an amoeba’s ability to make baseless emotive claims. In other words, intellectual cowardice denialism.
A position has been made. Said position has been supported by two highly educated lawyers and you, like a child in the schoolyard, hurls ad hominems at them in your denialism of the legal analysis (truth) you refuse to listen to.
Furthermore, you failed to establish your academic and/or professional experience in some area within the field of the law that would equip you with the requisite knowledge to understand how the law works. No surprise there, as previously noted. As such, you could no more explain how the law works than you could how a tampon works.
You have failed herein to either establish a substantiated position of your own, or in substantiating a counter argument to the supported position that I proffered. Epic failure.
You’re done here.
Here end of the lesson.
Created:
-->
@Barney
What does that 📺 series have to do with anything in this thread?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Word salad 🥗 and denialism.
God cannot be good if His creations are inherently evil.
Bible says everything He made was good, and He even said so.
Bible says human beings are made in His image. If God is good, so are human beings made in his image.
But if you contest and say we are evil, then He is evil too. And the Bible has shown Him to be evil just as human beings can be evil too.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Short and to the point stories.
Created:
Oh joy, another unsubstantiated TDS thread.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah, right. Not like the Black Panther Party members did.
That was basically tossed "a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
This bullshit indictment should too since it is purely political and nothing short of obscene legal theories.
Notwithstanding, calling for the death of someone who had absolutely zero impact on your shitty vote is absolutely pathetic.
You will never be taken seriously at this website. Ever.
Created:
Just how many times are you going to spam the forum with redundant threads?
Created:
It is better to die like a vegan than live like a murderer
Cannibalism isn't a proper diet these days. Hasn't been for over a few thousand years.
Maybe a soccer team that crashed in the mountains and a few others had to rely on it until rescue arrived.
So, I am unclear as to what the hell you're even talking about here. Please clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are NO formal debates within the forum section, just open discussions. So just knock it off with the asinine debunked "this is a debate website," "why are you here" garbage.so you're lazy and can't or wont make any actual arguments.
And I have, and still like your doppleganger Double_R, you refuse to see it let alone accept it as such. Blind in one eye, can't see out the other.
You expect me to go and watch idiots spew nonsense for hours on end
Ben Shapiro and/or Mark Levin are no idiots, but you're certainly living up to that self-ascribed label to the proverbial "T" with this banal name calling genetic fallacy retorts.
so I can try and guess what your point is so that I can debunk it. You will then move the goal posts or just repeat nonsense at me and I will have wasted my time. I will pass. make an argument like a big boy or I will just assume you are incapable of doing so.
You couldn't debunk a bowl of alphabet soup; one in which I could eat and shit a better position than you and your redundant psychological projection.
I've given my opinion, you - like Double_R - refuse to acknowledge it or just lack reading comprehension skills to understand an opinion when it is given vs other info given.you haven't given your opinion. You have refused to do so. All you've done is try to make me watch right wing grifters. But that isn't your opinion. That is the opinion of someone who is paid to lie to you.
Yes, I have. Your intellectual cowardice denialism of that fact knows no bounds.
Thank you for your unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion.lol, so I actually explain how the law works and it's "unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion". but when shapiro gets paid millions to lie to you, that is gospel? you are just sad.
Remind us all again where you matriculated to earning a degree in some area of the legal field/arena that would equip you with the requisite knowledge to even know how 'the law' even works! Better yet, whereas you worked in some area of the law that would equally equip you with the same requisite knowledge. Well?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Nowhere in both scenarios.
You simply could not explain how a tampon works much less the law within the context of this discussion.
Claiming Shapiro lies without proving it is childish.
Claiming Shapiro makes millions per podcast is equally childish.
It is to you, Double_R, who refuses to engage others in debate. It is to you who refuses to review the cited material of others.
It is to you who is the failure here, not I.
Bugger off and go play with the rest of the neighborhood children and stop spamming the forum with your nonsense.
Created:
People are made in His image.
People are evil = He is evil
The Old Testament proves that salient point.
Floods
Pharaoh and the plagues, as well as the murder of all first born beast and humans alike.
So on and so forth.
He is evil, and so are His creations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Says the guy who calls out FLRW often. 🙄
Making a clear cut observation to another person about an entirely different person is NOT a “callout.”
That observation was proven true by him, too.
Nice theory on unicorns. Low taxes cause a surplus of money. Said no economist ever.BullshitBiden and his Democrat Congress extended all the Trump tax cuts.More bullshita steady transfer of wealth to the upper elitesLike Trump’s tax cuts for wealthy corporations and business owners?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing I said was an ad hom.
Observing one lacks the education in economics to understand that salient fact ≠ an ad hom.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
IwantRooseveltagain] Trump caused the inflation with the “biggest tax cut ever”Tax cuts cannot cause inflation. Inflation is increase of money supply relative to the total production. There is only onepossible cause: printing too much money.
IWRA isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Dumb analogy which proves it is to YOU who missed the point, entirely. As usual.
Shapiro is a lawyer, you’re not.
He has credibility, you do not.
His argument(s) is sound.
Yours is not.
You’re Dismissed.
Created:
>@WillyBWhat about all the other crimes? How come they’re not plausible"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" - Donald Trump
Clearly someone doesn’t understand the term, or its meaning, that of hyperbole.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
You're moving. The goal posts!
LOL!!! Yeah, that's what everyone says when they cannot refute the point made.
All along you have been distinguishing two kinds of laws, but now you claim only one thing is related to law and the other isn't?
Wrong. Still.
Your whining about my asking another who asserts a claim to establish said claim is obscenely absurd.
@n8nrgimbut if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first placehe didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them.
That is a claim without any support. I replied asking he provide that support. Even though this is not the debates section, we are still having a discussion; and when you put forth certain spurious claims, you need to back them up. I asked he back them up. You bitching about that leads me to ask you what you asked me: what are you doing here if you?
WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating.There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all.Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden.The rest of your previous comment also didn't give any context that outlined the difference, because you only provided the definition of one of the two words you were trying to contrast. The whole point of your comment was in the part I quoted.
There's that lack of reading comprehension.
One word was defined? Really?
illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.prohibition. n. forbidding an act or activity. A court order forbidding an act is a writ of prohibition, an injunction or a writ of mandate (mandamus) if against a public official.
Looks like two different words with different meanings within the context of this discussion.
It's also hilarious that you are so desperate to run away from my original criticism that you are trying this hard (and failing) to nitpick the use of some words.
LOL!!! Psychological projection right there.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
You're moving. The goal posts!
LOL!!! Yeah, that's what everyone says when they cannot refute the point made.
All along you have been distinguishing two kinds of laws, but now you claim only one thing is related to law and the other isn't?
Wrong. Still.
Your whining about my asking another who asserts a claim to establish said claim is obscenely absurd.
@n8nrgimbut if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first placehe didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them.
That is a claim without any support. I replied asking he provide that support. Even though this is not the debates section, we are still having a discussion; and when you put forth certain spurious claims, you need to back them up. I asked he back them up. You bitching about that leads me to ask you what you asked me: what are you doing here if you?
WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating.There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all.Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden.The rest of your previous comment also didn't give any context that outlined the difference, because you only provided the definition of one of the two words you were trying to contrast. The whole point of your comment was in the part I quoted.
There's that lack of reading comprehension.
One word was defined? Really?
illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.prohibition. n. forbidding an act or activity. A court order forbidding an act is a writ of prohibition, an injunction or a writ of mandate (mandamus) if against a public official.
Looks like two different words with different meanings within the context of this discussion.
It's also hilarious that you are so desperate to run away from my original criticism that you are trying this hard (and failing) to nitpick the use of some words.
LOL!!! Psychological projection right there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
-->@Double_RIt becomes illegal when he uses the lies he told to advance illegal activitySo why are there no indictments for insurrection?
Exactly!! Not to mention sedition conspiracy as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>I don’t need to make an argument as there is no argument to make when it has already been made for me in literal detail via the legal analysis given by Shapiro. One in which, given my own legal background, I could not find fault with.then why are you here? This is a debate website.
YAWN!!!!! You sound just like Double_R. A broken record on this invalidated point.
Yes, it is a debate website, but this website is demarcated into two distinct sections: (1) Debates and (2) Forum. We are in the latter, the forum, NOT the former, debates. Be cognizant of not only that glaring fact, but the reality of discussions within the forum section. There are NO formal debates within the forum section, just open discussions. So just knock it off with the asinine debunked "this is a debate website," "why are you here" garbage.
you obviously either have no opinion of your own or lack the capacity to argue it.
I've given my opinion, you - like Double_R - refuse to acknowledge it or just lack reading comprehension skills to understand an opinion when it is given vs other info given.
If you just want to give links to other people's opinions then you might be more at home on some right wing echo chamber.
And yet others have done the same damn thing and I do not see you - or Double-R - bitching at them about it. Posting links to videos and/or articles in support of the opinion(s) given. When you refuse to acknowledge the facts contained therein, that's intellectual cowardice denialism, in addition to a genetic fallacy within as you discount the source without even factually discrediting it with actual facts and not your ignorant emotively driven subjective denialism of the source and the information contained therein.
Using statutes that were designed for things other than what Smith twisted and stretched like a Mr Stretch Armstrong stretch doll into some superfluous verbose legal theories ≠ an actual crime with clearly outlined criteria to be established in order to prove that the defined alleged crime actually occurred.ok, that is at least part of an argument. What about those statutes is not supposed to be used this way?
Well shit, had you clicked the link and listened to Shapiro break it down you would know the answer to this question.
More than that, much of the garbage is pinned to what Trump did or did not know and knowingly knew or didn’t know and did or said it (1A) anyway. Unless Smith is a psychic or has Trump’s brain activities on video…no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not a legal one.1) none of these charges have anything to do with the 1st amendment. You are allowed to say you think the election was rigged. You are not allowed to take steps to overthrow the election. That is what he is charged with.2) trump spoke with many, many people about the crimes in question. If he ever said that some of the things he was claiming weren't true, then that would show his "brain activities". And reportedly they have at least one conversation from him where he called some of these arguments crazy, but then went on to make them anyway.
Thank you for your unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion.
Created:
Yet another Disney flop : haunted mansion
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
So illegal means forbidden, and prohibited also means forbidden. That's what I said. There is no distinction. Thanks for conceding that point! 😃illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.
You left out the rest of my comment giving very specific context that outlines the clear cut difference. Typical intellectual cowardice denialist move.
Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden. Again, convenient you left out the rest of my comment. Pure denialism. And it proves you lack reading comprehension as well.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
There is not a distinct difference between a law that prohibits something and a law that says something is illegal to perform.
😂😂😂😂
illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.
prohibition. n. forbidding an act or activity. A court order forbidding an act is a writ of prohibition, an injunction or a writ of mandate (mandamus) if against a public official.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either. You can listen for yourself just like everyone else does and will do. Shapiro. Levin. They all come to the same legal conclusion.right wing idiots all come to the same conclusion!! my god, why didn't you say so!!
Ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Typical of one clearly exhibiting intellectual cowardice with a flare of grandiose pomposity.
I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either.no one has asked you to transcribe or provide cliff notes. I have asked you to make an argument, on you own, like a big boy. If you are incapable of doing that, then I will assume you have nothing but what some idiot said in a youtube video. If that is the case, there is no reason to discuss anything with you.
repeating the legal analysis given [IS] providing the cliff note version of what was said.
I don’t need to make an argument as there is no argument to make when it has already been made for me in literal detail via the legal analysis given by Shapiro. One in which, given my own legal background, I could not find fault with.
Using statutes that were designed for things other than what Smith twisted and stretched like a Mr Stretch Armstrong stretch doll into some superfluous verbose legal theories ≠ an actual crime with clearly outlined criteria to be established in order to prove that the defined alleged crime actually occurred.
More than that, much of the garbage is pinned to what Trump did or did not know and knowingly knew or didn’t know and did or said it (1A) anyway. Unless Smith is a psychic or has Trump’s brain activities on video…no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not a legal one.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nope. None of them are.So tell me why they are not crimes, despite being literal crimes trump is charged with. And don't link to a podcast by a moron. Tell me with your own words like a big boy.
You claiming legal theories are crimes is 😂!!
Calling a lawyer a moron is 😂 😂 x2!! Moreover, it’s a 🐓 💩 intellectual cowardice move.
I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either. You can listen for yourself just like everyone else does and will do. Shapiro. Levin. They all come to the same legal conclusion. The indictment is pure bull 💩!!
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
Bwaahhaaaahaaahaa!!!
Splitting no hairs. 😂
There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all.
Thus your reading comprehension is not fine.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
What I said in full wasI was just pointing out a fact. You were asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes that have been alleged, when you could easily read and interpret the indictment documents, especially considering your educational background.
WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating.
And here are quotes of you asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes/laws that were broken:-->@n8nrgimbut if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first placehe didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them.Cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a sitting US President doesn't have authoritative access to presidential records during his tenure. And acquiring them after losing the election, while still being the US President, isn't a legal argument. It's a subjective emotive one. Completely baseless.then obstruction is trying to find something with no underlying basis to it.also untrue. Even if he had the right to take them (which he didn't), once he was told he had to give them back (because he was no longer president and wasn't allowed to have them) then refusing to give them back was illegal.Again, cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a former US President has no legal authority to be in temporary possession of presidential records from his tenure in the White House.
Reading comprehension matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>I think you will find these are crimesconspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Nope. None of them are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mark Levin broke it down more succinctly.
The indictment is pure garbage chalked full of legal theories and NO CRIMES!!!
Ben Shapiro details the failures of this indictment much better.
Created:
Posted in:
OMG!!
There are still sooooo many pussy wussy whiny bitches on dart.
There are still sooooo many pussy wussy whiny bitches on dart.
You’re a bunch of fucking clowns.
Losers to the lowest order.
Grow the fuck up people!!!
Grow up!!!
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well Fuck u too!!!!! A-h0l3
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
was just pointing out a fact.
No!! That was a subjective OPINION
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Poker is more a chance game. chess is no chance. It is everything strategy.
DITTO!
Created:
What draws the line between sculpture and building?
If you have to ask, you will not understand when told
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Has been triggered by a republican being indicted for their alleged crimes. Asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes when they are clearly specified in the indictment documents that are open for anyone to see 😂
An indictment doesn't mean shit when its premised upon faux legal theories. Theories =/= crimes.
I have a criminology and criminal justice degree.
I have a paralegal dregree.
I have worked in law enforcement, both federal and local.
I have worked for a DA supporting 2 felony attorneys, 2 misdemeanor attorneys, and backed up the grand jury coordinator.
I have the personal experience, knowledge and academic training to understand the law.
Do you?
yeah, didn't think so.
Intellectual cowardice at its finest in the form of a childish ad hominem attack.
Ben Shapiro IS AN ATTORNEY!!! His assessment of the so-called shit-show indictment is spot on, from a legal standpoint. And many agree with him. MANY!
Created:
The intellectual cowardice denialists pick #1, or 3, or 5 or whatever it is other than #2.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh FUCK OFF you HYPOCRITE!!!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You couldn’t explain what a pile of dog 💩 is.
Mark Levin is an “expert” where your peon pencil brain is concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread definitely gives credence to my thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9599-sure-is-a-lot-of-whiny-bitches-dart
Created:
Created:
-->
@FLRW
hyperbole
Created: