Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If it's so rare, why not let the rarities use the washroom of their preference?
Because the majority do not want to share restrooms with the opposite gender.
I mean, the homos use the same facilities that you do already.
We are the same gender.
Aren't you afraid they might grope you?
No. Do you grope strange men in park restrooms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is this so difficult for "conservatives" to understand?
Conservatives understand it just fine, we just aren't going to make policy upending the majority for a rare aberration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please review The 235th mitzvah.
I don't need to. The Bible, which is superior in truth and authority, already spells it out. Slavery in ancient Hebrew times was nothing like American slavery. The person was not owned, his debt was. Hebrews could not force a person to be a slave, and had to pay him for his services, and had to obey laws governing how he could be treated.
Here, answer these questions for me.
Was slavery (the American type) condemned in the Bible for anyone, selling or buying?
Could a Hebrew purchase as a slave someone who had been kidnapped into slavery?
If a Hebrew forced someone to be a slave, would that be against the Bible law at the time?
If a slave wanted to become a servant of Jehovah, could he be refused?
When Joseph was kidnapped and sold into slavery, why was he sold in another country?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An unenforceable code is indistinguishable from no code.
When did we start needing a code for restrooms?
People create these "problems", and then insist the problems are biologically sourced. We're there more than 2genders before the APA? The entire argument is contrived. Some people think there are more than2 genders. Ok. They are free to think so. But if you are cought in the private places of the wrong gender you will suffer the societies penalty.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Would I be correct in assuming that your argument is more trying to establish that a god MUST exist than just that God exists? Subtle difference but profound none-the-less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why does it create such emotional responses?
One might think, because the wind or the lightening could kill you. But we get deeply emotional responses from things that present no danger too. A big sky filled with twinkling stars, a gently lapping ocean at sunset, a quiet forest with few dropping from gree leaves....
Or even looking into the eyes of your newborn daughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
we need him back, as comic relief
You were right Dee Dee, the membership is laughing.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.
Keep in mind you said: “But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human”
Is anything I said there wrong?
Don’t be disingenuous. Or I’ll keep treating you as such.
You can treat me any way you like, asking as I have the same right. I stand by my comment that when stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. You seemed to agree.
The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?
Do you really think the quote Benjamin referred to was in direct reference to abortion?
I asked you about a comment YOU made. You said it was without substance. Will you answer?
Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
No. That is YOUR thinking as a liberal. We believe every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.
You can interpret it all day long, it doesn’t change the fact the Declaration of Independence doesn’t refer to abortion directly, or does it?
It refers to all humans. Babies are humans.
The quote Benjamin used lacks substance when it comes to abortion. I would consider that self-evident.
How? Babies are human. The "all men" in the DoI is referring to humans. The declaration doesn't mention women, but I bet you won't say it "lacks substance" when it comes to women's rights. Who's being disingenuous now?
And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge
Neither of you know what you’re talking about.
As you are dodging his challenge, it's clear who it is that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol!!
Watching the elites and the MSM all fawn over Biden reminds me of those scenes in North Korea as everyone claps and stares all googly-eyed at the fat little idiot with the bad haircut.
Created:
Posted in:
What they want is to decide Parler's moderation, on Parler's site.
No. They want to decide Parler's moderation on Google/apple's site.
Here is how you answered the same question on another thread.
So Google wants to decide moderation on Parler.
they want products that appear in their store to follow basic rules of conduct, yes.
Contradict much?
They have no such policy.
Google has alot of policies. Please read through all of them to confirm there is no such policy.
It's Apple and they have no such policy. I know you think posting a link makes you look like you know what you're talking about, but I have already confirmed it. That is why so far you have incorrectly used the US Constitution and analog telephone conversations to justify their ban.
so in your mind, discrimination is being punished for things you are guilty of? that strikes you as discrimination?
Discrimination can also be when other guilty parties are not punished.
there is a pretty major difference. No one can trace actual violence back to music on the apple store. We very much can trace violence back to the shit parlor is allowing. At least 5 people are dead, and parlor is very much involved in that.
We who? The "traceback" is in your TDS besotted mind only.
1) all standards are "made up". Where else would we get them?
Standards should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
2) please show me where apple encouraged the murder of members of government.
When you show me where Parler encouraged the murder of members of government. Remember now, not users of Parler, but Parker itself, since that is apparently your criteria.
I can show you where Apple did not moderate the violence encouraged by gangster rap on their music site and trace it up the high murder rate in black neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. I can even name rappers who have been shot after rap songs have threatened those same rappers with death. Those songs are on Apples music site.
you haven't established that Google or Twitter's CEO's have leftist beliefs.
I don't need to. They said so themselves. They went even further and admitted that most of their staff are leftists. You must not have watched the congressional hearings with the Big Tech CEOs.
And Parler isn't really a threat other companies.
At the rate Parler was growing, only an idiot would doubt it was a threat to Twitter. Hobo Jack is obviously not one of those idiots.
They are a shitty little right wing echo chamber.
Oop! Your TDS is showing. But when we call the MSM a shitty little left wing echo chamber, the libtards get hysterical. Lol.
The problem is that the echo chamber started amplifying calls to violence and parler was letting it happen.
For three months American cities were burned and business looted by BLM/Antifa. But one single night of a few probably drunk hooligans roaming a building they were let into by police is the impending fall of democracy?
I am struggling to not call your hipocrisy for the stinking mess it is.
Created:
Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
not a single court was investigating trump.
Thank you.
They were investigating claims of fraud. And in every single case they found no evidence of fraud. Therefore all of trump's claims were tested in court and found to be incorrect.
Untrue. The courts did not investigate. Here was never any trial. Most of the cases were dismissed with no prejudice to the claims brought. Most were dismissed on technicalities. None of Trump's claims were "tested" in court.
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
this is a common lie people on the right tell.
Did the Meuller investigation find collusion? Please stop lying.
The investigation did not find that there was no collusion.
The investigation found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Stop lying.
...they are removing an app that has very seriously breached their terms of service. If that is discrimination in your mind, then there is no way to reason with you. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do when someone breaches a contract.
Then why are the doing it only with Parler? Is hypocrisy a business tactic? Nothing in Apples terms says anything about public or private communications. Apple has been ad-hoc, and discriminatory.
Parler is in court now with Amazon about Amazon abruptly taking away cloud access, though the contract stipulates a 30 day warning to termination. We will see how that goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@FLRW
The protection against permanent enslavement also did not apply to foreigners
Deceitful. It was not the slavery you imply. Address that. There is no instance of slavery in ancient Israel by Hebrews where the human was owned. Even permanent servitude was voluntary. Stop lying.
Exo 21:5 - And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:Exo 21:6 - Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
But the fact remains, that it was the debt that was bought and sold, and inherited. This still happens today, it is not a strange concept.
-->@FLRW
Not true. Non-Israelite slaves are acquired either by purchase (Exod 12:44)
All slaves were a purchase. But a slave purchased by a Hebrew could not be from one kidnapped into slavery. is, not by force. The potential slave himself had to agree to the exchange.
Lev 25:39 - And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
What does his poverty have to do with being a slave? Because slaves sold their debt and then worked it off. If slavery was as you say, the poverty of the person would not matter.
Untrue. POW Slaves could become Hebrew and gain freedom during Jubilee.
Foreign male slaves are circumcised and allowed to participate in the Passover sacrifice (Exod 12:44)
Exactly, because they had become part of the congregation of Jehovah.
The facts are the I have shown the verses prohibiting slavery for ANYONE.
Ancient Hebrew slaves were actually indentured servers, not slaves owned by masters.
Servers were to be paid, freed if maimed, and not treated harshly.
You have no case.
I have pointed out that though the word "slave" is used, the meaning was different back then. Both of you have avoided that point and pretended you didn't see it.
I have shown you the verses where God says He is the owner of all men, proving that ancient Hebrews did not believe humans could bodily own another human being. ( As proven by the verses saying they were to be freed if maimed)
You have no case.
Christians are not arguing that Hebrew servitude was pleasant, but just that it was not immoral, and neither the same as American slavery in the 19th century.
All you have is the word "slave" translated from Hebrew of 6,000 years ago. When to show you how meanings of words change, I posted another verse using the word "gay" and asked you to interpret it, you ran away.
My conclusion is, if you wish to believe that the Bible condones slavery, ignoring the verses that prohibit it, call it evil, and set the penalty for it as death, go ahead. If you wish to pretend you don't know that the "slavery" in ancient Hebrew times was not akin to American slavery where the person was bodily owned, but ownership of debt, go ahead.
I am satisfied I have demonstrated you are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee,
Did your template break? Waiting for word from your loony Landover church on how to proceed? Tired of spamming the same stupidity over and over? Your schtick not working anymore?
Whatever the case, as you can see, I'm still here for you. Looks like you realized your posts were empty and decided to leave them empty of the vacuous bolded, capitalized, words. Progress.
Now you can work on the leap from not posting anything stupid, to actually posting something intelligent. You can do it Dee Dee! I believe in you. Now, just ignore Landover and the voices in your head for a second and concentrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Some people say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. I say not when stupidity’s on your side.
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.
That’s just flowery wording with no substance.
The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?
Is there anything that directly talks about abortion or is it just interpretation?
Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.
I find it amusing you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence in this circumstance.
Why? The Declaration of Independence establishes that we all have human rights and that those rights are inalienable and from God. Absolutely pertinent to Ben's argument.
Where are you getting your human rights from?
From the same place the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it. But you've already told us you think the Declaration of Independence lacks "substance". (!!!)
I did say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly pro-choice.
And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It's not really an argument to just keep repeating your false thesis.
And declarations are not arguments Oro. We know what parties the men belonged to, but we know how they behaved too.
History has concluded that Chamberlain was a conservative and Churchill was left of center by any modern American standard.
Lol! Now you are just outright lying. Chamberlain was a snowflake liberal. It is understandable that you liberals don't want him now. Chamberlain is the shining example of the bankruptcy of liberal ideology in the real world. So is California. Churchill was a conservative, today's modern American liberal would call Churchill a racist. And they do.
I have made arguments to this effect that you have ignored.
I have dismembered, not ignored. Chamberlain behaved like a liberal, and you're insisting he belonged to a conservative party. So what? Have you addressed my rebuttal that he is to be called a liberal by his actions? Let your beliefs come from critical thought instead of verbatim from history books.
You have to present some kind of evidence supporting your claim that the opposite of history is true. Your thesis stands disproved and ignorant of basic fact.
Nonsense. I haven't a clue what you call "history" but Chamberlain going to Hitler and appeasing him on Poland and then getting duped into believing Hitler wanted peace are all historical facts, and classic liberalism. If you had read any of Chruchill's writings you would know that he was a conservative, even moreso if judged by today's standards.
I'm way too experienced for the lame trick of claiming my view is "the opposite of history" thereby making your view, history, to work. Use consistent logic, not trickery.
And there is no need for liberals to thank conservatives for saving the world from Hitler. You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Is that from the University of Phoenix?
No. At my University, we could think for ourselves instead of needing an authority figure to think for us. I would ask you what University you attended if I thought you attended one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Here is what I think about you call to "world unity".How about having a go at a bit of World unity...
Dear fake Vice President Biden,
Although I refused to listen to it, I understand that during your presidential acceptance speech, you were calling for the unity of Trump supporters. I remember four years ago my President Trump also called for unity. I remember how Congressional members of your Democratic Party responded by boycotting his inauguration. I remember how you and your Democratic party cheated and used the greatest law enforcement institution of this country to spy on my President Trumps campaign. I remember how you and your Democratic Party created a fake Russian dossier to try and impeach my President Trump. I remember how your speaker of the house ripped up my President Trumps beautiful State of the Union speach on National TV. I remember how you and your Democratic Party tried to impeach my President Trump over an innocent Ukraine phone call. You accused my President Trump of pay to play. Come to find out Joe, it was really you and your son Hunter. I remember how you and your Democratic Party blamed my President Trump over a pandemic that he had nothing to do with. I remember how you and your Democratic Party encouraged rioting and looting of my great United States of America. I remember how you and your Democratic Party used the media to spread lie after lie about my President Trump. I remember how you and your Democratic Party stole the election from my President Trump. This Trump supporter remembers all that Joe and will NOT be unifying with your Democratic Party. This Trump supporter will be giving you the same respect you gave my President Trump.
Not my composition, but expresses my feelings concisely. No sensible person unifies with hypocrites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Weird response if you think I'm afraid. How many did you convince of my fear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump
But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So you concede that Chamberlain was Conservative, disproving your thesis:
Chamberlain was in the conservative party, he was not a conservative.
WKPDA:The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.
The term was first used by Democrats, and it was the charge against Trump. Your distractions won't work.
- For evidence demonstrating that your understanding of reality is superior to mine,...
I was not trying to demonstrate that my understanding of reality is superior to yours. You posts do that just fine. My evidence supported my claim, that Chamberlain was a liberal, and Churchill was a conservative.
- you offered that
- Chamberlain was a liberal like me
- and
- Churchill was a conservative like you.
- But this is the opposite of true.
Untrue. Chamberlain was a classic liberal, regardless of his party affiliation, and Churchill was a classic conservative.
- You now concede that:
- Chamberlain was a conservative
I conceded nothing of the sort. Earn your concessions, not declare them.
- Churchill was far more liberal than modern US Trumpism
Churchill was a conservative. When you cannot counter a claim, stop talking.
Since correct apprehension of reality was your grounds for establishing that I am deranged and we both now agree that your apprehension of reality was the faulty one, we should likewise conclude that you are the one who is deranged, no?
You "conclude" what you like. I will stick with reality. The me outside your deluded mind has not "agreed" with you.
Kim is still making nukes, testing missiles. Trump did no more than follow So.Korea's detente.
Kim has tested no long range missiles. No violation of the treaty. And Trump got him talking. But your delusion forces you to not see reality if it is positive for Trump.
Says the guy who didn't even know Chamberlain was a Conservative, that appeasement was conservative policy vs. Hitler in both the UK and the US.
Chamberlain was not a conservative Cletus. But I get why you have to limit your definition to party rather than how he behaved. Thank God neither the US or England appeased Hitler.
You made a claim based in ignorance: that Churchill was a conservative like you, that Chamberlain was a liberal like me.
Both are true. For example, McCain was a member of the conservative party, but was not a conservative. Many Democrats, members of a liberal party, voted for Trump, the conservative candidate. You would have been duped by Hitler, blinded by the same loony liberalism that hampered Chamberlain.
These two claims contradict one another. Either Trump "gutted Islam"...
I said, "Trump gutted the liberals tendency to ignore what people wanted for liberal dogma. Not Islam. Please stay honest.
I, for one, don't understand how more law on Muslims, more law on Trans folks qualifies as "giving power back to the people"
Which must be why you're now trying to substitute your lie, "gutted Islam" for my truth, "Trump gutted the liberals tendency"
Perhaps the point is that Muslims and trans folks are not people, or at least not the people getting power from Trump.
America is a democracy. Majority rules. The majority of Americans do not want trans men in girls restrooms or jihadists roaming the verdant plains of America. Trump enacted the laws the people wanted.
OK, so that is pretty clear. The people you are talking about are not ALL people.
Please, stupidity is a poor debate tactic. Nothing in a democracy is ALL the people. But the majority carries the day.
You only define people as "followers of Trump" Even if we call every Trump voter a "follower of Trump" that's still only one American in five.
Would you like me to show you that many Democrats and independents also agree with Trump on the Trans and Muslim issues? If your argument is so good, why the deciet and trickery? Trump was called a populist by Democrats. That is because his policies was popular with a majority of Americans, of every stripe.
All Muslims are terrorists. Check.
Address the point instead of being a knee-jerk liberal. Do a majority of Americans want the ban on Muslims lifted? No. You're focused on your dogma. The American people do not want the ban lifted. But Biden has lifted it because liberals do not care what Americans want. They hold their dogma in higher esteem than the will of the American people. This is what Trump meant by America first. And this is why he could not have been beaten unless liberals cheated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm saying in both cases the government shouldn't force them to patronize people they don't like.
That is what you SAY you're saying. But Sado knows you're a leftist who champions liberal discrimination laws, and he smells a rat. Either you think businesses should be able to refuse service to blacks, or you think the government should force them to serve people they don't like.
Your forked tongue is the issue here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Can you list that policy?
I can refer you back to the statement from google and apple.
Their statement listed no policy.
Are you doubting that they have a policy that requires app's on their store to have moderation?
They have no such policy. What they want is to decide Parler's moderation, on Parler's site.
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
no. that would be unconstitutional you cannot legally discriminate on grounds of race.
Is Apple using the Constitution as the basis for banning Parler? The discrimination here is that only Parler is suffering the sanctions when multiple others are winked at.
Butwe aren't talking about race, or even discrimination. Parlor allowed users to spread messages encouraging violence. They did not take sufficient steps to prevent these messages from being spread so they were taken off the app store. There is no discrimination here.
According to your liberal dogma. First, Apple carries users who spread messages encouraging violence. Have you ever listened to gangster rap on apple music? Their sanction of Parler is discriminatory.
Second, they are judging Parler on their own made up standard of "encouraging violence" that they don't apply to themselves or anyone else.
Third, Parler is clearly a threat to Twitter, and both Google and Twitter CEO's have similar leftist political beliefs.
There is discrimination here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It can't be fraud if everyone knew exactly what was happening and was ok with it.
Then why do we need laws written down? If people are "ok" with slavery, it's fine, the Constitution be damned.
You may agree with the rule change HB, but you have lost this point. Fauxlaw is correct.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Parlor was never on twitter as far as I know, so I don't understand why you are mentioning that.
Both Parler and it's CEO had accounts on Twitter.
Parlor violated their rules about content moderation.
So Google wants to decide moderation on Parler.
Parlor chose to break those rules.
Parler didn't. Users on Parler did, ON PARLER'S PLATFORM, not Google's.
The man incited an attack democracy to try to prevent the rightful president from being sworn in. That is definitely a violation of his oath.
That is your leftist hysterical spin. Your not being able to see that doesn't make it not true.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.
Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
the trump campaign gave voter information to a russian agent, it definitely went further than "communication".
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
Also, it was trump that made it about "collusion". IE he kept tweeting he didn't collude with them while he was being investigated. Collusion isn't in any criminal code. It is a buzz word he used.
Lie. "Collision" was first used in the Congress by hysterical Democrats. And that was the charge used to launch the Mueller probe.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
most of them.
I can't tell if you're that ignorant or if you're just a liar. Every incoming American president talks to the leaders of the other superpowers.
Why would a president elect have communication with russians?
Because he is about to take control of t(and likely change) policy towards that country! Plus the Russians call him to get a feel of his intentions.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.
Yes. Your only fault is that President Trump didn't do that.
Your delusions are pretty strong. Even republicans admit that trump incited that attack.
Republicans who wish to keep licking the boots of the new sharriff. If those same Republicans had disagreed, you'd simply dismiss them. Most Republicans do not admit that trump incited that attack. You are trying to use the few turncoats as proof of your spin's truth.
But trump cultists will fight to the death to defend the dear leader.
I keep posting fact you dismiss, and focus on Trump. Of the two of us, only you are cultish with Trump. My point is that both Google and Twitter are being hypocritical and discriminatory. All you've done is bash Trump. Jim Jones much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
an app is being taken off an app store for violating the policies of that store.
Can you list that policy?
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know it's ok for the police to shoot white men, but what if a half white/half black police officer shoots a half black perp? How do they navigate that land mine?
Created:
Posted in:
If Dee Dee charged me for the space I occupy in his fevered noggin, I'd be poor and he'd be rich. Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol. Watching the inauguration today on CNN, I think they mentioned the capitol building "terrorists" a million times in 10 minutes. What sort of ignorant stupidity falls for that rubbish? Are Democrats really that dumb?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Rather than address my rebuttals, you jump to yet more of your personal opinions you wish to substitute as Trump's intentions. Why do you liberals avoid questions? Sorry, rhetorical question. I know why you dodge answering.
trump tried to get states to revoke their ceritified election results,
Trump tried to get states to revoke their false ceritified rigged election results,
...and tried to get pence to decline to certify the election.
...and tried to get pence to decline to certify the fake, rigged, election.
...this is despite the fact that all objective evidence indicates this was a free and fair election.
Objective doesn't mean, "what Democrats like".
what do you call this, if not rebelling against our democracy?
I call it Trump derangement syndrome. It's where you assign motive to Trump, and then pretend your assigned motive IS Trump's actual motive. This is why you have to dodge questions. You don't want the pretense examined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I did Mr E.......
You didn't Z-man.
Short term memory loss....
Still better than lying.
...things are looking bleak old boy.
You are aware, that your nerves don't terminate in my brain aren't you? Oh wait, you're a liberal, you think your perceptions are universal.
So where's Benny?
Benny Hill sadly, has died. Are you sure you live where you said you did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't give a crap about Trump. They want to make an example for the next person that dares challenge establishment DC.
True, but sure as rain, there will be a next person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's social evolution Mr E. and it won't stop.
No one asked it to stop shemp. Whatever "it" is to you.
If it scares you that much,...
When you Karen's do this, do you really think you fool the readers? Do you think they begin to believe I'm "scared" because you say I am? And how does it help you if I'm "scared"? Finally, "scared" of what? As atheist are wont, you haven't defined your "it", but you're already building doctrines on it.
best arm yourself, load up the 4 x 4 and run for the hills.....And don't forget the rocking chair.
The liberal caricature you have in your mind doesn't debate as well as the real conservative does it? No wonder you prefer to engage that.
And watch out for all those other gun toting, paranoid, moonshine junkies.
Or with Biden's executive order, bomb toting jihadists.
Oh...And do you play the banjo?....Might help.
Rotten teeth don't.
Oh...And ditch the technology and social media....You know it gives you nightmares.
I have a Master's degree in Computer forensics. What does the caricature in your head have?
Oh...And if the lovely Mrs E ain't so keen....Just chain her to the stove and hide her shoes.
I have a wife. Did you never convince one or did yours wise up and leave?
Regards......You Old Conservative.
Identity politics. Ethan doesn't play that. Get out into a city when your non-fascist government will let you, and you'll see how ancient that lame caricature of Jed Clampett is. It isn't 1952 anymore Mr. Bean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- In fact, Neville Chamberlain was a life-long member of the Conservative Party.
So was McCain. What people do is much more telling than what they say.
- Trumpand Chamberlain share the same philosophy regarding dictators- appeasement.
Trump didn't come back from NK with a worthless "peace in ourtime" slip of paper. He showed Kim "fire and fury".
- Like Chamberlain, Trump regularly defends establishing friendly relationships with emerging totalitarians
Trump was not blinded by loony liberal dogma that made Chamberlain blind to the menace of Hitler.
Your post is tangental nonsense. Chamberlain resigned and apologized, later admitting he was wrong. History remembers Churchill as one of the first to realize and warn England about how dangerous Hitler was.
Historical revisionism is the liberal's MOD.
You call me a "historical revisionist" but then demonstrate near ignorance of well documented historical fact.
Not a single "fact" you posted contradicts anything I've said. Chamberlain was tricked by Hitler due to his liberal pacifist policy. Churchill was not a liberal, and thus not fooled.
Trump won because he gave power back to the people, which is true democracy.
- Cite three example of Trump "giving power back to the people."
1. Trump gutted the liberals tendency to ignore what people wanted for liberal dogma. On subjects like Islam, transgenderism, and, abortion. America harming dogma - as Biden is signing into law right now.
2. Trump made the Justice Dept enforce the laws on religious freedom in America. The religious were not liberal punching bags during the Trump administration.
3. Trump made America first, like the American people want. That is why "the people" flocked to his rallies and speeches. What the people wanted, Trump gave them. That is power.
Biden just signed an executive order to allow Muslim terrorists into America. If the American people voted on that, would it be what Biden just signed? No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, did I shame you out of your case and bolding? I almost didn't recognize your last post.
But your post are still filled only with pablum. Schtick will never get you there Shem. No one cares about your opinions, especially after you've spammed them a thousand times. Exactly how empty are you? "The membership" doesn't even read your loony template posts.
Lol. You're like that other brainiac. I don't fall for your lame bait, so you lie that I "keep bringing this to the forefront". Lol. What? Your emptiness? Your silly reputation doesn't work. Your childish attempts at shock don't work. Your template schtick doesn't work. Now what will you do?
Your vacuous posts sit like stones in the river of the threads conversation. If I didn't talk to you, you'd be almost invisible. But Ethan is a man of his word. I will be here for you Dee Dee. If you are intent on showing how clueless you are, Ethan will help you do it. I will toast you till you're burnt black.
Project yet again about how embarrassed you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
He can only post from a template so he's limited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I think the republicans are afraid of all the damage trump will do if he can run again.
Yet it's the Democrats trying to prohibit him from being able to run again. Does reality matter to you?
I stick to reality....
Reality doesn't reside between your ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If Trump is as bad as they say, isn't it strange they are afraid of him running and winning again? If Trump runs again and wins, who do they think would have elected him? Bolivians?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
no, it's a fact. he's been trying to overthrow democracy = fact
No. "Overthrowing democracy" is your loony private interpretation of what he did. Not what he actually did.
on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news.
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.
we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees.
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.
we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states.
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection?That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.
How is "overthrowing democracy" then a"fact"? You must be profoundly deluded, or boldfaced lying.
Created:
Parler has sued Apple, and the CEO of Parler in a post on Parrer.com has vowed that Parler will be back online by the end of Jan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The truth is impressively resistant to progressive liberal nonsense. Trump's approval rating among Republicans has held steady.
It took years of a liberal takeover of our education system, scientific grants, mass media, and Hollywood to hold Trump at par. I call that a loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Did you know that both Hitler and Trump feared and despised American Democracy and both ordered swastika-waving paramilitaries to attack the respective parliaments which tried to check their campaigns for unlimited power?
Inside your TDS racked mind sure. In reality, Chamberlain, who was a liberal like you, wanted to cozy up to Hitler, and Churchill, who was a conservative like me, wanted to kick Hitler's a$$.
Historical revisionism is the liberal's MOD. Trump won because he gave power back to the people, which is true democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
Education 26 Topics
If only there was a way to make debate and education interesting to 16 year old boys!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Here I am again about to burn you.
You keep mentioning TS. Is he in your template?
Jesus and I will once again...
Tell me. When you were banned, was Jesus banned along with you? Cause I noticed Jesus didn't make a single post while you were in the party van. Maybe Jesus needs your permission to make posts?
You imagine the membership is laughing do ya? Lol!
Do you smell something burning Dee Dee?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.
In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor was on the google play store. So they were on google's platform and breaking Google's rules.
This is simply untrue. Tell us what rule of the Google play store was broken by Parler? The Parker app was on offer at the Google play store. They violated no google rules.
Did Twitter ban Parlor? I'm not sure that makes any sense.
The Twitter accounts of Parler, and of it's CEC were banned, though those accounts violated I Twitter rules. Even Twitter did not vote any rule violations when announcing the ban. They cited actions ON PARLER as the reasons for their ban. But why would Parler need to observe Twitter's rules on Parler's own platform? The Ayatollah doesn't, yet his Twitter account is still up.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
I agree.
And we say this is hypocritical political discrimination.
They should have cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago.
They are wrong to "crack down" and try to force other platforms to observe their rules. Since Parler broke no Twitter rules, they should not have been banned.
But they really, really didn't want to have to get involved. They don't want to be stuck in the middle of politics. They try to avoid actually having to crack down on anything. It is only the overwhelming severity of what parlor and the loonies on the right are doing that is forcing them to take action.
Nonsense. Even if we accept for arguments sake your biased view on their actions, it is not Twitter's responsibility to moderate Parler's platform.
She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president
I have no idea what she did for years.
Of course you don't, because you are fed ONLY on a fact lean diet of leftist news.
So if she was spreading lies that is a problem. But she is a comedian, not the sitting president of the united states. They have very, very different levels of responsibility.
Yet she had to issue a public apology.
Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not.
Again, this is your TDS talking, not fact.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact.
no, it is very much fact. Dozens of court cases, investigations by multiple law enforcement agencies and by every contested state. Every single time the outcome has been the same, no significant amounts of fraud. Yet the president continues to lie about it.
This is like a racist using the Supreme Court case of Dredd Scott and public opinion in 1890 as proof that blacks were inferior.
And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
i agree that not all the reporting was accurate. But much of it was.
Not about Trump. They lied. They covered up the truth. They broadcasted innuendo as fact.
Trump and his campaign did communicate with the russians and lie about it.
The charge was collusion, not communication. What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia? Only a stupid one.
There was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. These things happened. That is indisputable by anyone fully connected to reality.
Then the US Senate isn't "fully connected to reality" according to you. I doubt you have a grasp of reality the all Republican Senators lack.
Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
it's not a crime to make fun of or criticize a politician.
We are talking about inviting to violence, please don't try to be dishonest. Holding the bloodied severed head of a controversial president on a show broadcast to millions of viewers is pure incitement. Yet you see only what Trump said as incitement. That is TDS.
It is a large part of the job of a comedian.
I was unaware that incitement to violence was a large part of the job of a comedian.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.
Yes. You only fault is that President Trump didn't do that. It is your TDS making you believe he did. But just as with Kavenaugh, no one is going to be convicted because of your TDS. Your opinions are not reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are these verses talking about people in homosexual clothing?
Can't answer Brutus?
"The surest sign of a fake argument is a refusal to answer questions. " - Ethan
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Those verses do not say slaves would not be paid.
Do you understand the difference between an INDENTURED SERVANT and a FOREIGN SLAVE?
Sure. One refers to renumeration and the other to nationality. Are you confused? Those verses do not say slaves would not be paid.
An INDENTURED SERVANT is a person who is working off a DEBT.
We know. Now tell your atheist buddies.
A FOREIGN SLAVE is a person who is owned as PROPERTY.
Untrue. You are grasping. A foreign slave was an indentured servant who was not a Hebrew and thus was not a believer in Jehovah. What was owned was the debt, not the person.
Hebrews were forbidden from taking ANYONE by force for slavery. Slaves in ancient Israel became slaves by mutual agreement. Foreign or local, they were paid. The only difference was that foreign born slaves were not automatically freed after jubelee because they were not believers.
Those verses use the word "slave" in the ancient Hebrew context.
Citation please.
Please don't be stupid. Those verses were written in ancient Hebrew times, what other context could they have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The reality is until you start living in the real world and start making sensible comments about such things, you - are the duck. Quack Quack.
Isn't "quack" the slang word for fake posters....er ....I mean, fake doctors?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would reply that your perception is not reality, but then you're a liberal.
Did you know that both Hitler and Trump drank water? Makes your case even tighter eh? Talk about people not putting their brains in gear!
Charisma is not only a negative trait.
It is to a liberal when it's about Trump. There are some of those geniuses who want to boycott orange! Their brains must be in gear.
Created: