Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@coal
There are many things wrong with this post, including a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is.
OK.
Liberalism does not contend that all cultures are equally good. This is wrong.
I know, but perhaps you need to tell liberals that.
This is closer to multiculturalism/cosmopolitanism, but they do not make claims that any culture is "good" so much as that no one culture has the right to impose its norms on another.
Do you know any multiculturalist who is not also a liberal?
Liberalism is not multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism. These are different animals.
Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are subsets of liberalism. But seeing the abject failure of multiculturalism, smart liberals want to decouple now.
With some irony, liberalism takes both multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to task for this belief.
When? Where?
The position that no culture is superior to any other culture (which is not the same thing as saying that all cultures are good, btw.),
True, and both comments are equally wrong, and liberal.
...and more specifically the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, is generally describable as a "relativist" position.
And liberal.
When I say "relativist" in this post, that is what I mean. Hopefully that clears up any lingering confusion.
No one seems confused on what liberalism means. It is liberals who hold the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, even when immigrants enter another country.
Liberalism is anti-relativist, for at least these reasons:
1. Liberalism contends that there exists such a thing as human dignity; that all humans have human dignity; and that the dignity all humans have is equal, such that this state of having dignity is at once a human universal and a condition of being human.
Ok
2. In that all people have co-equal dignity, this state of co-equal being is inherent to us all; and implies that all people are themselves, equal in worth and value in relation to one another.
Ok
3. In that all people are equal in worth and in relation to one another, this state of being implies an equally universal normative ethic by which we all ought to treat each other -- whether we act as individuals in relation to one another, or by and through the state.
Ok
4. That universal normative ethic is what we understand to be universal human rights.
Irrational. Ethics are not rights, and cannot be. You are simply doing what liberals do, that is, declare their belief are right, and applicable universally. This is illogical.
Rights are conferred. Or else you are simply declaring rights. In that case, anyone's declaration is as valid as yours.
This is why we now have liberals now declaring silly things like money, jobs, or transenderism are human rights.
5. Universal human rights are prior to any culture because culture, which emerges from society, which emerges only after entry into some social contract; are superior to the norms of any culture, as all cultures are specific to their time, place, and context.
The concept works in so far as human rights are universal, but what are human rights and what are not?
6. As such, to the degree that any cultural norm conflicts with universal human rights, the culture is itself offensive to human dignity; and therefore the cultural practice in such offense must yield to the degree it conflicts.
Again, all you've done here is to declare your opinion on "human rights" superior to all others.
The relativist rebuttal is this:
1. But what are human rights, other than a claim that Western ethics are superior to those which conflict with it2. In no sense are these Enlightenment-era ideals "universal" any more than the Christianity from which they emerged is "universal"
The Liberal reply is:
1. That is a thinly-veiled attack on the source of the argument (i.e., western Liberalism and Christianity), which does nothing to rebut the argument for universal human rights grounded in humanity's co-equal state of being.
No. You are being deceptive. The attack goes to the validity of anyone making a list of " human rights" and calling them universal. The relativist is not questioning your source, he is saying your source has no more validity than any other.
2. Even if you, the relativist, did successfully rebut this grand narrative; people are still people, they are still equal, and the available alternatives (on which you cannot reasonably rely, because you, too, agree that things like sharia law's requirement of honor killing rape victims and apostates, for example) are too hideous to bear.
Thus, everyone must share your beliefs. Are you aware that the Muslim can (and has) correctly used the exact same argument?
No one is disagreeing that people are intrinsically equal. The disagreement is in what this means.
Relativist, in reality, is too forgiving a word for the "you do you, I'll do me" worldview. In reality, to abdicate moral responsibility by saying that no culture is superior to another; is to surrender any claim to the possibility of right and wrong itself. As after all, if there are no standards by which the conduct of others can be measured; there is no mechanism to distinguish that which is wrong from that which is right. There is no "right for you, wrong for me." There is only what is right, and what is wrong. It either is, or it is not.
Do you know any liberals who agree with this?
But this is the debate that liberals and multiculturalist types, and progressives face at length.
Because that is exactly what liberals do.
However, your mistake is not uncommon.
Neither are those now trying to call it a mistake. You have correctly stated how the positions should be, we find in reality that every relativist is liberal.
For example, Yasmine Mohammed in her recent book "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam" explores this theme, though she recklessly uses the word "liberal" where she should have used the word "progressive" in general, or "multiculturalist/relativist" in particular. Despite this, I recommend it. Before reading Mohammed's book, It would be worth reading a book I used to teach out of written by Susan Moller Okin called "Is multiculturalism bad for women?" Obviously, it is.
I understand your retreat. Both multiculturalism and feminism have been proven bankrupt. But when every progressive and multiculturalist/relativist is also a liberal, your distinction is meaningless.
This is just one of the very complex contradictions which forms the basis of an emergent civil war on the left, as it manifests now, between progressives and liberals.
There is no emergent civil war on the left. Every progressive is liberal. You being perhaps a more sane liberal, wish to divorce himself from the more irrational positions of the progressive liberals, but yours is meaningless distinction.
But to coherently participate in that dialogue, one must understand the meaning of the terms; and attribute them only those precepts with which they are associated. Hopefully this post will help you do that.
This post tries to do that, but will fail because reality contradicts it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.
Just by looking at the headline you are wrong.
It was the headline on several websites.
Denmark adding in checks doesn't equal Denmark closes their borders.
They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?
Please tell me how much you are stretching.
If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".
I am guessing you are opposed to liberalism.
You're sharp.
What do you want instead?
Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
What did Harikrish say? I missed it.
The same things he says all the time. Basically he posted the same dumb racist spam over and over. Just look at any post of his. You didn't miss much.
Created:
Posted in:
Virt,
You guys are still doing great and everything I've seen so far has been levelheaded, thoughtful and fair.
The voting issue still needs work but everything cannot be remedied all at once. The team is moving in the right direction.
I've gotten nothing but positives reviews from the members to whom I speak to off the board.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Deb's style might be somewhat satirical, but their message is clear and reasonable.
Then perhaps you can state that message in a coherant way. Other than having some obscure objection to religious groups, (why groups and not religion?) I haven't a clue what deb is on about.
Some might say that your argument is somewhat staid and formal.
I have never had an argument against deb because deb has never given a coherent argument. Do you know what deb's argument is?
It's a case of each to their own.
Deb apparently doesn't think so.
And fact is important to some people who are undoubtedly relevant others.
Isn't it?
If you say so. I couldn't make sense of your comment above.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
You do believe in God, for some reason, you think that fact is somehow important and relevant to others. It isn't.
Which is why I don't follow you around the board yapping at your heels like a deranged poodle, like you do me.
Welcome back temporarily. Did you enjoy your time in the black van?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which bit is a hooha? (Never heard that one before)
I couldn't think of any polite female equivalent to the male Willie. : )
is a transgendered man a man or a woman?
Depends on who you ask I guess. I call males, men, and females, women. I don't play that silliness of referring to people by their preferred gender pronouns.
Presumably they get their respective bits out in private cubicles.
One can only hope.
Or is it a free for all these days?
Gutter warning!! Gutter warning!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But His message was for everyone.
No it was not and you cannot prove it was.
John 3:16 proves it. Jesus said so.
I have to keep reminding you, Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.
A Christian is one who follows Jesus genius. Who Jesus was has nothing to do with who His message was for.
He was a JEWISH priest NOT a Christian priest.
Hebrews calls you wrong. Jesus is the first, last, and only priest for Christians. Have you read Hebrews?
He was king of the JEWS (even Pontius Pilate recognised this) NOT king of Christians.
There were no Christians before Jesus. Jesus is the King of kings. The king of everyone.
In fact I believe Jesus would have been totally appalled at the fact the a new religion had sprung up in his name.
Lol. Weird then that He accepted worship and encouraged His followers to pray to Him huh?
Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep, but His message was universal.
The evidence proves otherwise. And you can ignore it all day long.
You mean I can refute it all day long.
Jesus himself says “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” <<<< see that?not a single mention of christians or you.
Yes, Cletus. Jesus Himself was sent to only the lost sheep, but His message was for everyone.
Add to this a further FACT you so crave :
It doesn't mean what you think it does. The Bible says, "For God so loved the world, that whomsoever believeth in Him...
That means His message is for everyone.
The twelve were sent with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6)
See that?
I see. So what? At that time, they were restricted to Jews because of prophesy. Later, Paul and others were sent to gentiles. You are without reason, assuming that the message was never meant for gentiles, when Jesus Himself says it was.
This is Jesus enforcing a strict command on who the disciples should and shouldn't preach to.
At that time Jethro. Only at that time.
"the lost sheep of ISRAEL" not Christians or YOU.
You don't know Jewish history. The disciples were restricted for a time, but the message never was.
Not to mention the FACT that there were no Christians at the time of these commands.
So what?
And this is regardless of what Paul may or may not say. Jesus himself laid down a strict commandment about who should and should not receive his word.
He said whomsoever in the world believes, He would in no wise cast out. You are terribly confused.
You are clutching at straws and simply dying for words to be in the scriptures that simply are not there.
John 3:16 is there. Honest. Check it.
This is why you can never win an argument, because you constantly try to put words into the Christ's mouth that he didn't utter. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Lol. Would you like me to give you verses talking about the universality of Jesus' message?
Why do you assume that because disciples were restricted for a time, it was a universal restriction for all time? Why do you assume a restriction of the person means a restriction of the message?
You have still dodged the fake quote you tried to put on Jesus. Why?
This is your strongest "contradiction"? How is it even a contradiction? No wonder you tried a mass dump. You really don't want any one of your bits of silliness examined in detail.
Created:
The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.
Unless the official was corrupt, which was the complaint from various allies.
Incorrect. The official being corrupt does not excuse Biden's illegality.
A developing resource for world trade in a country being annex by Russia is a pretty good reason.
Thank you. So Trump had even more good reasons to ask.
Because what Biden did was illegal.
According to what statute.
The exact one you're trying to use on Trump! Oops!
I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking...
Okay, so, no law forbids it, that means he has the authority to ask. Thank you.
No, it doesn't mean that. Because no law forbids it does not mean he has authority. That is a logical fallacy, but again I know it would be useless to explain it to you.
Extortion...
Is a crime,..
Thank you.
He said there was no collusion.
Incorrect. He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime,...
You said Trump had committed a crime. So now you have told me what Meuller thought, and Trump remains uncharged.
DJT Jr was let out of Muellers net literally because he didn't think what he was doing was a crime,...
Thank you. Meuller does not agree with you.
The useless dem will vote to impeach Trump. The Senate will throw that stupidity out. Trump will remain in office. And he will win in 2020.
Those of you suffering under TDS will continue to suffer. Your derangement will get worse, and its sheer silliness will cause more and more people to move towards Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
What happened to all that gibberish you used to post? Y'know, the weird symbols and numbers that used to populate your posts. Did you get better? Or is that weirdness just waiting for you to get angry again?
You can rant an rave all you want, and nothing is going to change you. Trump will remain in office, Jesus will remain on His throne, and you will stay a weird guy ranting incoherently on some obscure debate site.
No wonder we annoy you so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus Himself was sent to the lost sheep.
Yes, the lost sheep of Israel NOT Christianity. Jesus the JEW makes that perfectly clear.
But His message was for everyone. Your claim was that it was a contradiction. But Jesus and His message are different things. Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep, but His message was universal.
Your charge of contradiction is irrational.
No one cares about your biased opinion.
Don't you be so sure.
Everyone prefers facts. Please post some.
And yet Jesus helped her.
But not before she pointed out his hypocrisy.
Lol. Facts, not opinions jedthro. Don't simply blurt out nonsense, show your point.
Lol. Stephen posts a wall-o-text,...
You got exactly what you asked for...
No sir. I asked for contradictions, you mass dumped unsupported nonsense.
...and are now bleating and wailing instead of addressing those hundreds of very clear contradictions.
No one is going to address all your spam. But notice each one you have mentioned has been debunked. You faked a quote by Jesus and you haven't addressed that yet.
And speaking of "wall to wall text" have you must missed the pointless, drivelling babble posted by your dear friend pga who has at least attempted to explain away some of these contradictions that YOU challenged people to post?
And I've noticed you haven't touched his rebuttals either. What you will do, is later re-spam the same tired nonsense as "contradictions" in some other thread.
Go look at the wall to wall of text at posts 18-19-24-43-44-45-46-47-48-49, just mind your eyes don't bleed.
You posted a supposed "contradiction" to me. I told you that Jesus didn't say that.
Silence from you. What? Did you think all you had to do was post some lie and you had proven a contradiction?
Address PGA's rebuttals. He only did 8, you posted more than 200. If you expect us to address 200, why are you choking at his 8, and my 2?
Because as we said at the beginning, you don't want debate. You just want to post silliness and call it contradiction. That is why you mass dump, and cannot address the explanations already given.
If you are so right, why did you have to fake a quote by Jesus? If the "contradictions" are so clear, why can't you address the rebuttals?
Anger and bombast will never substitute for rational argumentation.
Now, pick out one "contradiction" you think is the strongest, and I will dismember it for you live on air. You will not be able to defend it, or address my rebuttals.
I will show how what you consider your strongest "contradiction", is nothing but sloppy thinking and irrational bias on your part.
Or you can run by spamming 200 more bits of nonsense. Either way, the Gentle Readers see your fakery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tell us, why do you allow yourself to be made the fake Christian on DebateArt?
Who is "us"? The only person who you ever seemed to even slightly agree with has been banned for stupidity. Did you replace him with another moron?
And who is making me a fake Christian? It can't be you, because we've never spoken.
now you are being a namby pamby pretend Christian in front of DebateArt by not addressing each one of his alleged contradictions! Why?
I was waiting for you, the great Christian to do so first.
Where are your defenses? What? You haven't addressed any? I've addressed 2.
Stand up for Jesus or leave Christianity altogether because we...
We who? Your Hindu brother is gone. Or are you using the plural of majesty?
...don't want lilly-livered Christians amongst our ranks, understood?!
But you liked Hindus? Are you aware Hindus are not Christians?
And again, what "our ranks"? You seem to be one solitary illogical guy obsessed with Christianity.
Now engage Steven because this is your fight
You mean it isn't the fight of you and your "ranks" of non-lilly-livered real Christians?
Jesus said to defend the faith and you, the great Christian on a white horse, are sending in a fake Christian? Lol. Where is your sword brother?
Look at you running away from the Hell bound Atheist named Steven....Stephen, can I ask you a favor?
Lol. Is "hellbound" Stephen in your "ranks" of stone livered Christians? Is he the replacement for your banned chris-Hindu partner?
now you are being a namby pamby pretend Christian...It is no wonder that Jesus has continually sent me to DebateArt...
The next time you talk to Jesus, ask Him if it's "namby pamby" or "mamby pamby".
No good wasting all that wisdom at your fingertips eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
3 questions:Men with their willies out don't mix with young girls.
What about transgendered men who have removed their willies? Do they mix with young girls?
Do men with their willies out mix with old women better than young girls?
Do women with their hoohas out mix with young boys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
That would have been embarrassing at 22!Imagine your crush walking in while you're doing a #2...
Created:
Posted in:
Denmark Introduces Checks On Swedish Border To Combat Terrorism, Travel ...
Denmark to impose controls at Swedish border amid crime wave - The Telegraph
As Bombings Spread, Denmark Closes Border With Sweden - Breitbart
Denmark closes borders with Germany as migrants head to Sweden
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.
In February 2017 President Trump held a rally in Florida in front of thousands of supporters
During his speech President Trump referenced the increased violence in Sweden due to the tremendous influx of refugees.
They ran attacks all day Sunday claiming Trump said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden.
But Trump was right. Migrants are changing the face of Sweden.
The bombings and violence have continued to escalate in once peaceful Sweden.
On Monday Denmark closed its border with Sweden as bombings spread.
Read the main stream media links above, and you will find no mention of the criminals being immigrants or Arabic.
In 2010 it became the first Nordic country to be hit hit by an attack linked to Islamic terror. The two bombs which detonated in the capital killed only the bomber, Iraqi born Taimour Abdulwahab.
Since then one Isil inspired plot to make pressure bombs was disrupted by police and in 2016 a teaching assistant and a male student in a school in an immigrant area were killed in a racially motivated sword attack.
Integration has remained a problem in the country where the relatively high numbers of immigrants compared to a population of just under 10 million means it has one of the highest rates of immigration per capita in northern Europe.
The numbers have been rising steadily since the 1990s, and in 2015 Sweden accepted a record number of more than 160,000 refugees.
Sweden used to be nice and peaceful, with low, low crime. Today, rape and terror are rife. What did they think would happen if they brought in hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims from backward cultures?
Of course, liberals will deny the truth right before their eyes and squeal racism, islamophobia, or some other such nonsense.
Hey Sweden. Now your country Look's more like Afghanistan. Are you happy now? Denmark, you're next.
You have to be brain dead not to know that 200,000 Arab Muslims plunked down into your country will change your country towards an Arab Muslims culture.
And what is Arab Muslim culture? Socially primitive, and violent.
Liberalism says all cultures are equally good. If so, why is Sweden now a dump? Why is Denmark closing its borders? Why are Swedes now dying from swords and bombs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And still not addressing the issue of these quite clear and obvious biblical contradictions yourself
I did. You misquoted Jesus.
but would rather leave it to some other sucker, although it was you who through down the challenge, here.. post 9 page one.
You still haven't posted a single contradiction. PGA just dispatched 8 of them and I showed you faked a verse to gain a contradiction.
Don't make me laugh. I don't believe this subject is a laughing matter.
Then you shouldn't have posted so many lame jokes.
There are CLEAR contradictions in these scriptures no matter how many times you attempt to deny they exist.
I don't have to deny anything you simply assert. Show the contradiction.
Now why don't YOU be brave enough to take on this little blinder?
There are without doubt some contradictions that are damming to Christianity in my opinion.
No one cares about your biased opinion. Do you have any logical facts?
A clear example is that of the so called 'Great Commision'. One must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, plain and simple. In Fact he was king of the Jews no less. Not king of the Christians
Matthew 28:19 King James Version (KJV)19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The twelve were sent with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6)
So, plainly this then is not a universal message.
That is illogical. It was simply not time for the message to be given to all. Your conclusion that it was not universal is rash and unfounded. Later, Paul is sent to the gentiles with the same message.
And again we see it with the encounter with the Canaanite woman:[Jesus denied her plea to heal her daughter, saying] “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Jesus Himself was sent to the lost sheep. His message was universal, as evidenced by the fact that He did heal her daughter.
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24–6)
And yet Jesus helped her. Are you confused?
If we go back to the Old Testament we won't find an all-inclusive message there, either. The Israelites were God’s “Chosen People,” and God had some choice words to say about anyone not "his people":
Jesus said Moses wrote of Him. And when Jesus taught in the temple, He taught from the OT.
The bible is the story of God revealing Himself and His message. It was not done all at once. Abraham knew less than Isaiah, who in turn knew less than John.
No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of Jehovah, not even in the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3).
God also forbids intermarriage with these foreign tribes (Deut. 7:3; Ezra 9:2, 10:10; Nehemiah 13).
Where is the contradiction?
All yours ethang5. don't tax your brain and please take your time.
I can't see into your head Stephen. I'm sure its crystal clear to you, but you have to bring it out of your noggin.
What exactly is the contradiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about.
Take your mythical Jesus to the religion forum,
Another confused liberal who thinks he rules. I was asked a question Jethro, and I answer questions in the thread I'm asked. Deal with it.
...a Moon or Mars space colony...
Take your mythical spaceman to the technology forum Jethro.
Created:
Such spurious anecdote followed up by a request into closed investigation,...
The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.
...specifically against the Bidens (and not Burisma)
If there were no Bidens, why would the United States be interested? There is corruption worldwide, are we going around asking other countries about it? Of course the US was concerned only about how any corruption related to our officials.
...as we head into election season are obvious, the President wants dirt.
Obvious to you, but not actual. You want to impeach a president for what seems "obvious" to you. You are still saddling intent on Trump you assume and cannot show.
I contend Trump does it for personal gain.
Prove it, don't assume it. So because it
also benefited Trump, he should ignore a clear case of corruption?
"Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?
Because what Biden did was illegal.
cite the law that prevents Trump from asking about humanitarian and pollution issues.
I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking, but imagine if you were president of a country and Trump came and asked you to explain and justify the humanitarian
Situation in your country. Would you not reply him the way China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe did? With a hearty fck off?
But if the humanitarian issue involved Americans in your prisons, America would not, and should not accept your dismissal.
Statute required the president to ensure there was no corruption going on before American money is handed over. Trump tried to do that. He was correct.
Then please, demonstrate what laws he feels was being broken in the Ukraine regarding the Bidens.
You keep asking, and I keep telling you, and you pretend I didn't.
4th time now. His son was on the payroll of the company the Ukrainian investigator his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money. And it had been established that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election.
It was already investigated once, then again, surely your opinion on the matter is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
It had never been investigated by America. Ukrainian investigations alone will not fly in an American court.
An investigation is not a smear campaign.
Baseless ones very much are.
Tell that to Pelosi and shifty Shiff. And your attempt to convict Trump on your suspicions is baseless.
And he wasn't accused of wrong doing when the investigation started, he wasn't there, and he wasn't accused of wrong doing when Joe left office either.
Neither was Judge Kavenaugh, hypocrite. Is there a statute of limitation on corruption? He was not accused by the Ukrainians. His VP father made sure of that.
3 new prosecutors looked into it. Dead horse regarding Hunter, Ethan.
No sir. 3 Ukrainian prosecutors looked into it. But they are not officials in our legal system. Trump wanted American prosecutors to look into it. Ukraine is corrupt remember?
Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.
Name the law, bro.
Extortion
Name the law, bro.
QPQ. The inexperienced son of the sitting VP being paid by the company released from investigation. How did Biden benefit? Money paid to his son, underhanded money some other way, no scandal for his 2016 run.
He was sacked from the position, he was sacked because he was ineffectual.
He was sacked because the US VP went there and threatened to withhold American aid until the man investigating his son's company was sacked. Biden himself said so.
Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?
Please remind me of what I said about Trump's campaign manager meeting the Russians,
You said it was collusion.
...and I will let you know what Mueller thought about it.
He said there was no collusion.
It is shameful that Americans can be this destructive to their own country because of partisanship.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol. Stephen posts a wall-o-text, and then calls the Christians answer, "tedious convoluted drivel" and goes on to continue posting mountains of tedious convoluted drivel.
I know you have to demonstrate that PGA, but you are a more patient man than I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I put my belief way over what you think i, sure. Did you expect something else?
Basically irrational.
I think placing my belief way over what you think is the most reasonable is very rational.
Pretty much admitting here that it doesn't matter what the facts are.
No, the facts are not what your beliefs are.
Please tell me how you don't do this.
I'm not an idiot.
It wasn't my belief that Jesus didn't resurrect. It is a fact.
And why is it a fact? Because you believe it? Can we say circular?
You are basing your belief of Christianity on incomplete information. Not like you care.
You haven't a clue on what I base my belief. And true, I don't care for what you assume.
Tell me, is your belief reality? If yes, will I stop existing if you stop believing?
No I am speaking about the conclusion part.
Your beliefs are not reality, no matter how strongly you believe them.
I take the position what is most reasonable is that Jesus didn't resurrect.
Thanks for telling us your "position" on Jesus' resurrection. Is it supposed to be relevant to me somehow?
This isn't evidence by the way.
You didn't ask for evidence, you asked how Jesus resurrected. If you have a question on religious doctrine or teaching, the religion board is more appropriate.
The only way you can prove it is with science
Why do you keep telling us your opinions? Is it supposed to be relevant to us somehow?
you won't concede Jesus's supposed resurrection is repeatable..
Lol! As in bring Jesus back, killing Him again, and then having Him resurrect? No I certainly won't concede that.
You can here do what no other irrational Religious person has done...
And what is that? Jump through your hoops as if we're seeking your validation? Or pretend you can sit in judgement of our belief as if you're a judge?
Is this actually the best you got? Instead of defending your beliefs you are resorting to well you don't know what I believe so you can't talk about it.
You didn't just talk about it. You assumed you know what it is. You don't.
This is lazy and actually really boring. Why not try next time?
If I care more about your personal opinion next time, I will.
Are you too much of a coward to defend the very Religion you are apart of?
They have a religion board for that genius. And have you found that 3rd grade taunts work for you?
Can you prove to me abiogenesis exists? Can you prove to me dark matter exists?
Can you prove to me your spleen exists?
Wait what?
Did I stammer?
So you can't be bothered to defend your Religion
Who lied to you and told you I was defense and you were offence? Can you prove those things? Yes or no?
It isn't how it works.
Liberals are always surprised to find out they aren't the boss. Lol.
I know you don't like answering questions but don't expect me if you won't.
OK.
You know I would stop talking to you if you tell me I can't defend my beliefs.
So far it's been you chasing me around the board. I don't care if you stop talking to me or not. You think the only reason I'm not doing what you want is because I cannot defend my beliefs. That no other reason occurs to you justifies my not doing what you want.
I ask you to defend the very thing you believe in yet you can't.
Or I won't. But "can't" fits your little anti-theist worldview better right? If you were sincerely searching for a defense of the Christian worldview, you would do 2 things.
First, you would not demand it like you're some sort of authority that I must answer upon demand, and second, you would take it to the appropriate forum. There is a reason we have different boards for different subjects you know.
How faulty must your belief be that one line of questioning destroys it?
Lol. Now my beliefs have been "destroyed", all without me even stating them. You must be an awesome debater!
We do not have a good measurement for intelligence and people who compare race to intelligence have no scientific backing.
How about people who compare religion to intelligence, do they have scientific backing?
The claim would only work ...
I did not call you a racist Cletus. I said you would reject the evidence you asked for similar to racist asking for evidence that blacks are intelligent knowing he will reject whatever evidence is offered.
So you prove to me that you know what facts are by proving dark matter, abiogenesis, and your spleen exists, and I will give you my evidence that God exists.
This isn't how it works.
Sez who? You aren't the boss. You aren't in charge. If you can't show me that you know what facts are, I will not waste time with you. I am not going to live forever.
If you can't defend your beliefs. I understand.
If you don't know what facts are, I will understand why you'd be ashamed to admit it.
Your beliefs must really be weak to have to be pivoting to a new topic entirely.
You are asking me to prove Jesus resurrected on the politics board, and then saying I'm the one pivoting?
Who would have thought having reality conform to your beliefs was difficult.
Liberals try it all the time.
I did and I have made it clear here that you can't even answer 1 question about your beliefs. I'll wait.
If I can't, what are you waiting for?
When you realize that I am unmoved by childish goading, and answer my questions to you, we'll progress. Till then, I hope you have a great meaningless life, Mr. Real Nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't see why you are copying the entire thing.
And when I begin to post based on what you "see", I'll do that.
I put my belief way over what you think is the most reasonable, sure. Did you expect something else?
I don't put weight into some guy that you idolize over qualified people today just because you have no proof but believe he is Godly.
OK. It was nice to know what you don't do?
What you believe is not reality because you believe it, and is not reality for others, is conjecture? Lol, perhaps you have a private meaning for the word "conjecture"?
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
So that your beliefs are different from reality is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information?
Tell me, is your belief reality? If yes, will I stop existing if you stop believing?
It doesn't matter what I can believe.
If you think reality and your beliefs are the same thing, it matters a lot.
Now if you do care about fact tell me how Jesus resurrected. I'll wait.
His heart began to beat, He opened his eyes and stood up. He then walked out of the tomb. I hope the wait wasn't too long for you.
At least I don't believe in God and assume they are good.
So your belief is good because.... you believe it. Lol. OK man.
So your belief is good because you assign something of value even though you can't prove it exists.
I have not told why I believe what I do. And you do not yet know what I can or cannot prove. Your belief is not reality.
If you disagree about why you believe what you do, say why. Don't try to assume my position for me.
Lol. I'll wait for you to prove to me God exists. If you don't care about the facts just tell me.
Can you prove to me abiogenesis exists? Can you prove to me dark matter exists?
Can you prove to me your spleen exists?
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the nose. You don't know me and have never talked to me, but you're already convinced I'm wrong. Do you know what that tells me about your objectivity?
You're like the racist who asks for "facts" that blacks are intelligent. You just know what he's going to think of the facts.
So you prove to me that you know what facts are by proving dark matter, abiogenesis, and your spleen exists, and I will give you my evidence that God exists.
Take your time. Like you, I can wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I get a person not believing the bible, but why the caustic anger?I just wanted to demonstrate that there are reasons and logic behind the Christian worldview that these guys continually overlook in their anger towards God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a collection of archaic myths.
I know you think so. Is it supposed to mean something to me?
So why nit pick?
Indeed, if you believe it's a collection of archaic myths, why nit pick?
And why get so hung up?
Remember when you thought others were getting hung up on teenage sex in restrooms and it was only you talking about it?
I expect we all contradict ourselves every now and then.
Err... OK.
So if you like the read, then enjoy.
The read was fine, the assumptions not so much. But illogic is not yet illegal, so enjoy!
Regards, Z.
Cool sig. My kind regards to you too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about.
How?
If you don't know why I take Jesus seriously, you're too ill informed for the answer to the question.
I guessing you put your belief over what is the most reasonable right?
I put my belief way over what you think is the most reasonable, sure. Did you expect something else?
I will say to you though that what you believe is not reality because you believe it, and it is certainly not reality for others.
Conjecture.
What you believe is not reality because you believe it, and is not reality for others, is conjecture? Lol, perhaps you have a private meaning for the word "conjecture"?
Nihilism eh? Really?
At least I don't believe in God and assume they are good.
So your belief is good because.... you believe it. Lol. OK man.
I get it.
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.
Why?
So your confidence that Trump shouldn't have conducted the investigated himself is gone? I prove you wrong and you simply ooze to yet another question?
Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law
Again, not true. Examples include Humanitarian conditions and pollution issues.
Please tell us the law that gives Trump the authority to ask a foreign country to investigate humanitarian conditions and pollution issues. I can cite you the law requiring Trump to ask about corruption.
Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.
I wasn't aware either of those circumstances require intelligence.
Of course you weren't.
You aren't president, and you aren't a billionaire. Does that mean you aren't smart, Ethan?
That is a logical fallacy I know it would be futile to explain to you.
The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime?
Because is is with holding money for something that would benefit him, personally.
No sir. He withheld the money as prescribed by law. And Joe doesn't get a pass on crime because he's a candidate. You are still trying substitute your assumption for Trump's intent.
A smear campaign in election season has value.
An investigation is not a smear campaign.
Secondly, if the money is held, there is no reason to think that a second investigation netting the same results as the first would earn them the money.
Trump asked for an investigation, not a result.
Biden was a part of the situation,
Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember?
Because his father was VP at the time. One doesn't need to be accused for an investigation to be proper.
It was an investigation into the CEO of the company, and his in-roads with the prosecutor that was investigating him. Its quite possible....
Facts please. Your possibilities, probabilities, assumptions, and suspicions will not be used to Impeach a duly elected president.
...the investigation never found Hunter to be engaging in anything underhanded.
His father was successful in getting the investigator sacked before that could happen.
And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.
Friendly reminder, an investigation later, and we don't have 'an accused' regarding the Bidens.
In the world outside of TDS, an accusation is not tantamount to guilt. The situation with J. Biden stinks to high heaven. That's why H.Biden has disavowed it.
His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money.
Indeed. And, by general consensus, said prosecutor should have been sacked, as he was viewed on the world stage as soft on corruption.
That is beside the point that it was an illegal thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that you are accusing Trump of the exact same thing!
Seems odd to sack a guy soft on corruption if your son is corrupt.
It is illegal for a sitting VP to use American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company your son works for.
Seems really odd to want a new prosecutor in, one that is harder on corruption, if your son is corrupt.
Odd or not, what Biden did was illegal.
The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid.
Dude, he repeated the same line of inquiry with China over the Bidens, and for some reason asked China to look into Elizabeth Warren. His MO is pretty clear if you take the blinders off.
You mean the TDS glasses. You want to convict a person on your biased suspicions. This is the same rubbish the Dems tried with Judge Kavenaugh. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?
No, I am familiar with the video.
Is it a crime?
I am still asking you what the crime was, in so much as the prosecutor in question was widely viewed as soft on corruption.
And I keep answering you but you pretend to be obtuse. The hardness of the prosecutor is immaterial to Biden's action.
It is illegal for a sitting VP to use withholding American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company his son works for.
This, again, seems counter intuitive. If your son is not named by a corrupt investigator,
Not yet...
and your son is indeed corrupt, why would you want a new prosecutor in?
You want the investigation stopped. Before your crooked son is fingered.
This whole "firing the corrupt guy to get a non-corrupt guy for a billion dollars" seems a bit drawn out.
That is the spin you want substituted in. It is illegal for a sitting VP to use withholding American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company his son works for. What's drawn out is the fake job the dems are trying to pull on Trump.
Why not just pay the corrupt investigator off, in so much as he was, ya know, corrupt.
Why do that with the risks that come with it when you can, under the guise of firing a "corrupt" prosecutor, get him out without spending a cent?
Let me cut to the chase for you: if you had ill intentions, the Bidens went about it backwards with more risk.
Untrue. The Bidens did exactly what corrupt politicians do.
If your intentions are pure, that was exactly how to handle the situation.
Then you shouldn't fear an investigation. But we aren't going to take it on faith your claim that the Bidens had pure intentions and Trump had impure intentions.
The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.
The Senate doesn't bring charges, either.
The senate convicts.
The president suffers no consequences from being found guilty and removed from office by the Senate.
Being removed from office is no consequence?
He would need to be formally charged by the AG after his removal, since, (convieeeeeeeeniently.....) the DoJ's policy is not to indict a sitting president.
Right. The AG being appointed by the president is a gross evil. Lol.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?
Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor whom had not named his son in any malfeasance.
Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal. Try to dress it as much as you want, the truth remains.
Look at your sentence above. There is no subject for your verb "have"!
Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor... what? To have him what? You don't say. Because you know it was illegal. So you smarmily lie.
So, of course, logically, fire the guy that hasn't named your kid. Makes TOTAL sense, Ethan.
More sensible would have been to wait till his son was named?
Secondly, do you honestly think...
If it had been Trump's son, you would be having convulsions. Please man.
The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.
With the original investigator sacked.
Negative, the 'old' investigator sat idle on the case for quite a bit of time before he was replaced.
Untrue. He was sacked from the case.
So, of course, the investigator that is not finding corruption in the company he is investigating is a prime target for putting in some one else. Brilliant strategy.
Has nothing to do with the illegality of Biden's action.
Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.
Trump gets a smear job, that is gain.
An investigation is not a smear job, though it is interesting you think it is. Biden could have been cleared by an investigation.
Trump might even get....
Facts please. Your possibilities, probabilities, assumptions, and suspicions will not be used to Impeach a duly elected president.
Anything good for the country would be good for Trump, but not everything good for Trump is good for the country. This is a prime example of such.
Only if we stupidly accept your assumption as truth. Why would we do that?
Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.
That sounds more like his kid profiting than Joe.
Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?
So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries?
Because the Trump-lings are perfect examples of what NOT to do.
So you agree it was criminal.
I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.
What is 50Kx12, Ethan?
Is it not illegal if the amount is not gigantic?
Secondly, I think your definition of 'personal' is borked. If my kid gets a birthday card with money it it, I'm not profiting.
Your son getting 50k a month while you are a sitting VP forcing that foreign country to sack the prosecutor investigating the very company paying your son, by withholding financial aid to them, is not borked.
This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.
I am telling you what he pocketed.
And we are telling you Trump pocketed nothing. But your moral compass wants to convict the clean one and ignore the one who profited.
600k. That was Hunter's salary,
So you say. We don't know.
...so we know who it went to.
No we don't. An investigation would follow the money trail.
And you mean you want another investigation. The first one didn't name Hunter of wrong doing.
Because the investigation was stopped by the sitting VP, and father of a possible investigative target, by extorting the government of the foreign country with withholding aid until the investigator was sacked.
...birthday card with money in it
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I could go into a lot more detailed account but that will suffice for now.
You would be throwing your pearls....
He'll find something to challenge.I doubt Stephen will challenge it.
He quotes Jesus in Jn 8:14 saying, "Jesus can say on the one hand : if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
Jesus actually said, though I bear witness of myself....
He changes (or the atheist site he mined changed) Jn 8:14 so that it "matches" Jn. 5:31 and then he can claim a contradiction.
I certainly wasn't going to go into the detail you did. Thanks for doing that. It was an excellent post. I know you did it for people other than Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
i love cnn by the way if you ridicule this wonderful source i will block you , how dare you qustion the true source...
Lol. How many times now has CNN had to fire crooked reporters or recant a fake news story?
In the echo chamber, TDS flourishes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
Lucky for me, your opinion matters little to my life, even if you think it should.it to me is pathetic that a grwon up would beleive some fairy tale ,
Not only do I know the bible and its history better than you, I'm probably better educated in general than you.do you know how many times the bible has been translated and changed
As I wasn't seeking your respect, I don't think I'll be shedding any tears....you are beyond sad and pathetic i have no respect for you.
Yeah, I certainly don't deserve as much respect as you.i gladly side with lord satan, your god sucks 9 year old cock
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Immigrants.
Illegal immigrants. There’s a difference
Not to liberal democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@dustryder
And if fewer civilians and more terrorists are killed.I'm actually okay with more drone strikes if it ends the conflict Obama started.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about. I will fight against it with everything I have.
How does a government have anything to do with the apocalypse? Those 2 concepts are completely unrelated.
Really? Wars remained small and localized until there were governments. Governments enabled war to advance to the apocalyptic scale.
What is it with liberals and big government?
Because in a democracy, the people get a strong say in how things are run and what the priorities are. If you have weak government,...
Notice, Gentle Reader, that HB equates small government with weak governments.
[I'd rather not leave] it to people who don't care if I live or die.
How would a big (not weak) government ensure that people in it cared if you live or died? Notice that the number of Americans dying for no logical reason has increased as the size of the American government has increased.
Reality is a thing HB.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You seem like a reasonable guy, how come you can't see what you're doing?
You are convicting Trump as a warmonger simply for "considering" one of his options?
For using a strategy against North Korea that worked and brought them to the negotiating table when no other president could?
He has not intervened anywhere, but you still find ridiculous things to accuse him of. Noninterventionist doesn't mean one will not intervene under any condition.
You are being grossly unfair here, and its sad I have to say that to you. I didn't think you had TDS, but it appears you're only able to cover it better than Paul and nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about.
Why do you take Jesus seriously and how is he qualified in talking about politics?
If you don't know why I take Jesus seriously, you're too ill informed for the answer to the question.
I will say to you though that what you believe is not reality because you believe it, and it is certainly not reality for others.
Nihilism eh? Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about. I will fight against it with everything I have.
What is it with liberals and big government?
Created:
Ethan. You're back. What a... well, no, not a surprise. What do you call it when you full expect something, and it happens?
Did you also expect that the guy keeping me away would do what I predicted and have to resign? I did.
The only reason trump was able to win was because of the poor design of the electoral system.
Like the only way the Washington Nationals were able to win was because of the poor design of the MLB system?
You question was this: "Like the majority of Americans supported Hillery?"Of those that actually responded to the poll, the majority did support Hillary.
Like of those that actually played the game, the majority did obey the rules?.
The problem is your likening, not the reality that contradicted it.
Both Trump and Hillery knew the rules before they ran. Trump won fairly. Get over it.
Anyone who has been paying attention.
I've been paying attention...
Debatable.
Debate it then. This is a debate site.
It is a crime to ask for a thing of value from a foreigner to help you in an election.
The, " to help you in an election" part is you substituting your assumption for his intention. Trump asked for an investigation. It was his duty to do so.
I am pretty confident the laws of the Ukraine are for the Ukraine to investigate, not Trump.
Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.
Secondly, 'assumption of intention' was laid out by name. "Look into some corruption regarding XYZ company" would have avoided this whole mess,
Nothing would have avoided the dems seeking some conflagration. Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law
but no one ever accused Trump of being smart.
Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.
Just to head your rebuttal off at the pass "... do us a favor..." is not the office of the President's duty to receive.
He referred his AG. And statute says the president must ensure there is no corruption before forking over the country's money.
Trump asked the president of ukraine for dirt on Biden. These facts are publicly available to anyone who cares.
This is simply untrue. The word "dirt" is never uttered by the president. He asked that the issue be investigated.
Again. Considering it already was once, and the specific names mentioned by Trump were never under scrutiny, it lends itself to a "favor" being wanted. Not "justice".
The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime? "Do me a favor" is common language. You want to convict Trump on your baseless assumption.
He asked about Biden by name.
Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation, and Biden and his son were America's only interest in the issue.
Why were they of interest, again?
His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money. And it had been established that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election.
If it was a general request to look into corruption he wouldn't have named Biden.
Illogical. ...
Asking for "a favor" isn't in that agreed upon treaty.
The word "favor" is not a crime, no matter how you try to criminalize it. Trump wanted the matter investigated. He was completely proper to want it.
The moment he asked for that he committed a crime.
Nonsense. He asked for an investigation, had he wanted dirt on Biden, he would have just asked for dirt. An investigation could have cleared Biden.
Considering Biden was never named, and there was an investigation, that actually started before Hunter was on the board at Burisima (sp?),
He was on the board when his VP father bragged on tape of doing exactly what you are now irrationally accusing Trump of doing.
...its probably a safe assumption that whatever Trump is looking for is nothing more than something exemplified in his own house.
Probably a safe assumption huh? Impeach!
Statements can very easily be criminal.
And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.
Remind me... who is the accused? Because its not Joe B or Hunter at the moment.
Whomever it is, the person deserves due process.
A statement asking for dirt from a foreigner to help in an election is also a crime.
He did not ask for dirt, that is your assumption you are trying to artificially elevate into fact.
Well, most people aren't deliberately obtuse, Ethan.
Most people do not suffer from TDS either. No one will be convicted on your biased assumptions. Thank God for the Senate.
He did not ask to help his election bid...
Its just happy coincidence that election season is right around the corner, and this wasn't brought up 2 years ago.
The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid. That is the intent dems are trying to hoist on him. A person cannot be convicted on crimes you assume.
What were those crimes, again, against the Bidens? Riiiiiiight. Spurious allegation.
Nonsense. Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?
Trump has been proven to have committed 1 crime already.
Then why do we need a trial? Hmmm?
Considering we are talking impeachment and not 'trial', this is a non-sequitur. HoR and Senate are not courts of law, they are the board ousting the CEO.
Trying to. On trumped up charges. They will fail.
Its up to law enforcement to indict, but in much as the person whom would indict was hand picked by Trump, we see a flaw in the system.
The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.
You tell me what president has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government into helping him win an election.
Barrack Hessien Obama through his VP Biden. Would you like me to send you the video link of Biden bragging that he used funds approved by congress to successfully blackmail a foreign government?
You only read half the question. Re-read it, Ethan.
The only president who has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government is Obama.
...there is no suggestion Biden ever broke a law.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?
The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.
With the original investigator sacked and the new one knowing that the crooked US VP would be back if he stepped out of line.
Hunter Biden was both a lawyer and a lobbyist by trade. If you think a gas company has no need for lawyers or lobbyists, you are deluding yourself. Hunter's salary as reported was about 50K a month. If you consider a board member to be both legal council and lobbyist rolled into one, that's a deal.
Uh-huh
Biden gave something and the US got something. That is normal diplomacy.
And Trump gave something and the US got nothing...
But Trump did. THAT is what makes the crime. US didn't gain, Trump does. See the connection?
Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.
But Biden didn't do it with any intention of personally profiting.
How do you know this? You insist your assumption about Trump's intent is correct but refuse to look at Biden's intent.
Well, how would he have?
Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.
If what you say is true, its Hunter that profits, not J Biden.
So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries? Who's being obtuse now?
There is also no evidence that he did personally profit.
I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.
Whats 12x50K, Ethan?
What is the minimum dollar value where it becomes a crime?
This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sad but true.
Maybe things will have changed by the time you're ready to contribute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You've done nothing wrong in my book zedvictor4. I had no problem with where you took the topic, only that you seemed to be unaware that it was you taking it there.
Feel free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sure you do. But there is a reason you people always mass dump this old tired logicless dross. You don't want to support any of them, you just want all accepted as contradictions without any critical thought of any.
If to you then they are not contradictions, then simply start by telling us why they are not contradictions, instead of attempting to passing these very clear contradictions off as " dross".
No sir. You are the one claiming they are contradictions. I don't have to explain anything that has not been established. These things are not contradictions just because you say they are.
You do yourself or your beliefs or your faith no justice or favours by simply trying to play down and wave away what are clear & obvious contradictions for anyone to see for themselves.
They are not contradictions just because you say they are. This is a debate site. No one will take your claim on faith.
You don't want to support any of them,
Support them as what!!!? I don't have to. I have pointed them out. They are clear biblical contradictions.
No, they are not. Any idiot can “point out” things they claim are contradictions. Things are not contradictions because you post them. Show us how they are contradictions.
It is down to you, the believer and the faithful to explain away these contradictions. NOT ME!!!
That they are contradictions is your claim. You have the BoP. Until you establish that these are contradictions, I have nothing to explain.
I've seen you argue many of them right here on Dart and lose,
Well let us all see me lose again, instead of you resorting to outright telling lies about me.
If its “again”, then I couldn't be ly…. Never mind. Lol
Why don't you try just clearing up a few of these NT biblical contradictions. Tell me why for instance, Paul states that he does not lie. Rom.9:1; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:20; 1 Tim.2:7. but then Paul states that he does lie. Rom.3:7.?
As you can see from PGA2.0’s excellent post above, your claim is just a semantic ploy that hopes no one will actually read the passage. What amazes me about people pushing this silliness is how they explain how this “obvious and clear” contradiction escaped detection for hundred of years by thousands of linguists, historians and professors.
What about you explaining to us how it is that Jesus can say on the one hand : if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
That is not what Jesus said.
YET on the other Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31. And please, take your time.
I need no time. You have misquoted Jesus in order to fake a contradiction. Every so called contradiction you've posted is nothing but silly word play, or an outright fake quote.
You've dropped 200 allegations, not a single contradiction.
Stop telling lies. The contradictions are there above, as clear as day for anyone; including a extremely poor reader to see.
Things do not automatically become contradictions because you say they are. If contradictions were so clear and obvious, Christianity would not be #1 in the world.
Now is all you have to do, is simply explain to us all why they are not contradictions , according to you?
No sir. You must show how they are contradictions. No one is going to take your claims on faith.
One contradiction would do, the fact that you had to post a wall of text is telling.
It is very telling isn't it? It is telling that there are contradictions in the bible that YOU cannot explain away.
Lol. You're now calling them contradictions, all without argumentation, without support, and without any logic. Just by posting them.
And are now claiming I cannot explain what you couldn't support. Do you even know what debate is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is what they want in posting a wall-o-text.Yes, I have fallen into that trap before. (^8
Thanks for your concise post above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are missing the point. I don't care about the squabble you guys are having.
That is obvious.
I am simply trying to untangle a knot.
There is no knot.
Take it or leave it.
I will leave it.
It doesn't matter who is to blame or who is guilty.
I disagree. Guilt and innocence matters.
What matters is that the course is corrected.
Untrue. Truth matters more than peace.
If that means overlooking offense, that is the right thing to do.
It cannot be. That is not what God does. But it is always interesting when a party not being attacked wants the party being attacked to "overlook" their abuse.
Morally equating a mirror spammer to a person behaving correctly is itself morally bankrupt. It discourages good behavior and encourages bad behavior.
I will never accept abuse in order to have peace. One wonders what your solution would have been for the Jews case against Jesus. Call it a squabble, lash Jesus, and then encourage the Jews to accept the lashing and go home, in order to untie the knot?
Created:
Posted in:
Trump is solidly non-interventionist.
Its the dems who want to force their will on other countries that won't follow their liberal progressive views.
Created:
Posted in:
UntrueThe majority of americans do not approve of the wall.
Untrue. The wall is concrete with steel reenforced rebars...if the wall can be bypassed in a few minutes with basic tools,...
A politician does something that his constituents want him to do that helps save lives, and you think the courts should stop him.
A court should stop him when it is illegal, even if his constituents want it, yes. But I notice you only have a problem when its Trump doing what his constituents want.
It wasn't the dems that blocked this, it was trump and right wing republicans refusing to negotiate.
Untrue. Your link is from MSNBC, (Racheal Maddow) The facts in it are false and skewed.
And if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes.
Think man! If the guards are 3 miles away, and the illegal is right there, the wall delays him till the guards can get there.
No wonder you need the fiction that they can get through the wall in a matter of minutes.
Also, detection devices let authorities know where illegals think surveillance is poor.
this is a false equivalence. You are pretending that helping one group somehow makes it impossible to help another.
If one cannot help every group, this is true.
We can easily help both.
Which is why our deficit is so high. Who is to pay for helping non-americans? And why should non-americans be helped when there are Americans needing help?
You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans.
Americans using its money to help its citizens is not an attack. Where do you people get this silly language from? Have you been "attacking" my kids all these years by spending your money on your kids? Sheeesh!
The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it.
Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.- Ten Years After, "I'd love to change the world"
Take money from producers and distribute it to those who produce nothing. This is the essence of communism, and it fails every time because producers simply stop producing, if the rewards of their hard work are given to others who did not work.
Liberal democrats act as if other peoples money is theirs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.
If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work.
Lol. Have you ever heard of a appeals court? Many projects blocked by the leftie court, were overturned on appeal, showing that they were not illegal. Perhaps you need a refresher course on how courts work?
They even got a deal with dems to fully fund the wall which they refused. So it is the republicans that prevented that.
Untrue. The dems put in riders on the bill to allow millions of immigrants already in the country to become citizens. Republicans correctly refused that fakery.
Keep out criminals.
Like what? What has trump tried to do to keep out criminals?
Build a wall. Banned immigration from terrorist countries. Make immigration merit based.
I am assuming you mean the wall, but since most criminals don't walk accross the border,
So we should ignore the ones that do?
...and even if they did, they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it.
You are ignorant. Do you know what $100 is to a poor illegal alien? But so what? Because the criminal can get through your defenses, you will have no defense?
Save Americans money for Americans.
I'm not aware of any plans he has tried to pass for this.
Of course you aren't. But we will save billions for Americans if we don't have to spend the money on non-american health care and repairs for terror.
Bring jobs back to the country.
He hasn't tried to do this.
And yet employment numbers are through the roof? How can I talk to you if you ignore clear reality in front of you?
Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country.
What has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
Keep immigrants from known terrorist hovels from entering the country without being vetted. But thank god he won on appeal.
Support American farmers.
His trade wars have been destroying american farmers. I'm not sure why you think he has been trying to support them.
I know math. But have you noticed that American farmers support Trump? Do you know any credible political analysts who think our current deals with China, Europe, or mexico were fine?
Support law enforcement officers.
Again, what has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
Sanctuary cities. Abolition of ICE. Block money for our glorious military. Refuse to allow state officials work with federal law enforcement.
You've listed things that either he hasn't tried to do,...
Untrue. Trump has tried to do every one of those things. You are not aware of them because your fake news outlets never tell you.
...or that he has had a serious negative impact on.
But that's just it. The dems think everything he tries to do will result in a serious negative impact, and reality keeps proving them wrong.
But he is the president. Let the man implement the policies he ran and won on.
Very few of which were blocked by dems.
Name one policy initiative of Trump that the commie dems did not try to stop.
Trump opened the WH bowling alley to WH staff and Pelosi and the dems tried to stop that! How petty!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Paul does. He full in the fog of TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Quite untrue. Trump has won more than 80% of the cases brought by liberals, it just that his wins are months later and not reported by the fake news media.The courts have blocked him from doing illegal things.
The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.
What has trump tried to do that they won't let him?
Build a wall. Keep out criminals. Save Americans money for Americans. Bring jobs back to the country. Get out of trade deals that are detrimental to America. Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country. Support American farmers. Support law enforcement officers.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Created:
Posted in:
What no Democrat mentions about KY is that there were 6 people elected that night, and in 5 of them, Republicans won.
In 2020, Democrats will be yelling in the streets just as they did after the 2016 election. They are falling for the illusion of their echo chamber all over again.
Nooooooooooooooo!!
Created:
Posted in:
Back and forths like this make everyone involved look bad,...
Quite untrue. First, it was not a "back and forth" brutal simply kept spamming the same thing I earlier said to him, and I only replied his posts to me.
I did not insult him, mirror post, or break any conduct code. You equating me with him is the height of bad moral equivalence.
Peace at the cost of morality is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
I make that almost 200 and still counting.
Sure you do. But there is a reason you people always mass dump this old tired logicless dross. You don't want to support any of them, you just want all accepted as contradictions without any critical thought of any.
I've seen you argue many of them right here on Dart and lose, yet here you are, dropping them again, though they have been soundly rebutted.
You've dropped 200 allegations, not a single contradiction. One contradiction would do, the fact that you had to post a wall of text is telling.
Created:
-->@Deb-8-a-bull
It helps if you actually have something to say Deb, and are at least familiar with your subject.
You seem to think your posts are fascinating entertainment, but I find them vacuous of real content.
You don't believe in God, for some reason, you think that fact is somehow important and relevant to others.
It isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact that conceptions and abortions happen in bathrooms.
You said it so I questioned it.
I said it because you asked...
What do teen pregnancy and abortion have to do with defecation and urination in high school's?
Now you want to pretend you didn't bring it up.
And how can a sexual advance ever be consensual?
I haven't the foggiest. I said, "No one to my knowledge has spoken about consensual copulation. Most spoke about unwanted sexual advances. The opposite of that would be wanted sexual advances, and I can assure you, those exist.
And don't forget to wash your hands.
Lol. I guess your preponderance with what kids might or might not get up to in bathrooms has gone a tad past seedy!
I'll be here outside of the gutter when your mind gets back to the thread's topic.
Created: