Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 5:15:35 GMT -5
Hey Deb, are you against rape or do you support your rapist president?
You're missing some information here. Exactly when was the president arrested, tried, and convicted of rape?
Bob
Why is that relevant? Truth is not determined by a government court. |
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 25, 2019 8:50:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jun 25, 2019 9:49:12 GMT -5
Deb-
>Basically, you're making a case that "dog whistles" exist because the Democrats think they do.
---No, I'm making the case because the far right think dog whistles exist. When Trump (or any other politician) says or does certain things, the far right brags to each other about how that person is a supporter of White Nationalism (or whatever), but can't admit it publicly, so that politician is letting the far right know that they have a friend in power. The Dems don't make the stuff up. They read the stuff that the far right gleefully passes around to each other with their "he's with us because he said THIS" interpretations. If the far right would stop bragging about "dog whistles", no one would talk about them any more.
---YouTube is full of silly stuff. Just because a bunch of people couldn't think of any racist thing Trump said or did just means that they're ignorant, not that he didn't do it.
---Here's one example (there are dozens more). Trump told John R. O'Donnell, the former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, according O'Donnell's account in his 1991 book "Trumped!" "Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that."
---As to Obama. Like I've said before, no president has the power to completely run the economy. It's a complex mix of international businesses, weather, new tech, wars, laws, regulations, etc., that no single person or group controls. It requires cooperation among many groups to either make it work or to break it. So when we say that President Such-and-Such is responsible for the economy, good or bad, that's automatically not true.
---But presidents and Congress do have some power and can aid or hinder the economy. The world economy crashed in 2006-2008 while George W. and the Republicans were in control and they were blamed for that. Just read about how bad things were when Obama was elected in 2008. Banks and lending institutions were broken, business were closing, etc. Then compare that mess to the economy when Trump was elected. BIG difference. Yes, Obama all by himself did not fix the economy, but he was president while it was being fixed and he did help. So he gets credit for things being better when he left than when he came it.
---So Trump inherited a working economic machine that didn't require much effort to keep in good shape. And Trump claims credit for that and for other things that were done long before he was elected. And his sheeple followers open wide and swallow the Kool-Aid. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 10:34:11 GMT -5
You're missing some information here. Exactly when was the president arrested, tried, and convicted of rape?
Bob
Why is that relevant? Truth is not determined by a government court.
Truth is not determined by unsupported claims either. Please give supporting evidence.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 25, 2019 11:29:40 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Let me get this straight. 0.08% (estimated) of the population who walks around in bedsheets or shaves their heads IMAGINE they hear something. God only knows what else they may imagine -- going by their costume.
The Democrats IMAGINE that because this O.O8% (estimated) group of people IMAGINE they hear something this proves it exists?
To me, it proves that one group of crazy people are psychologically projecting what they want to hear on Trump. Also, that another group of equally crazy people are projecting a "conspiracy" of hidden secret codes.....
One question did the Democrat's decoder rings come straight out of the cereal box? Or did they have to send away boxtops with a few bucks to cover shipping?
All joking around aside, this is imaginary conspiracy based on imaginary secret messages. I only believe in things people directly state.
About the YouTube -- there's more than a "few" of these around. Most people who hate Trump can't even give specific examples of what he is supposed to have done or said other than to quote propaganda from the mainstream media which is an arm of the Democratic party. Most of this is based on "imaginary" translation of some secret code baloney.
Does John R. O'Donnel have a videotape of Trump making that statement? I don't know the man personally. In fact, until you mentioned him -- I never even heard of the man. Unless he can provide some proof that Trump said this -- why should I believe him? Because he said so? Because he (for whatever reason) may dislike Trump and this claim serves the Democrat's purpose? How do I know Trump didn't fire him because he was incompetent at his job and so he says this about Trump to turn people against him?
However, Jennifer Hudson (whom I do know in terms of having heard of her) was given accommodations at Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago in 2011 (without charge) during the investigation into the murder of her family. This was reported in many sources (photographs included).
The last time I looked Jennifer Hudson is a black woman. It seems to me that Trump did something here for a black woman that is verifiable in many sources dating from that time period.
If Trump is a bigot (as Democrats claim)--- he could have just mumbled the typical "so sorry this happened" and left it at that. He went the extra mile to see she was comfortable (and as she stated in People Magazine) "very safe" under his protection.
No -- it's apparent your claim of "bigotry" is a figment of the Democrat's imagination backed up by dubious claims of a possibly disgruntled former employee.
It is also "not true" that Obama is responsible for the Trump economy , as the articles I've posted indicate. Trump's economic policies are totally opposite to Obama's as the article I attached indicated.
The reason Obama is claiming credit is because he is a Narcissistic windbag who is trying to claim his failed policies were responsible for the current economic boon. A boon which DID NOT occur until Trump put HIS policies into effect.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 11:39:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 12:21:32 GMT -5
At least they have the excuse of being insane.
Postmodernists by contrast knowingly and willingly support a philosophy that permits child rape and wife-beating as long as the majority of a culture supports it.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 25, 2019 12:29:50 GMT -5
The ignorance is strong in this one.
In Catholicism, God talks to mystics.
The difficulty of course lies in the discernment as to whether a mystic or visionary is authentic or not.
The Church normally does not make any judgments until after their death, and even then, a good number of them are never formally investigated by the Church.
No Bible. No Bible Study. Final decision based on evidence submitted to council.
Still on ignore. Corporal work of Mercy: Instruct the Ignorant
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 18:21:21 GMT -5
At least they have the excuse of being insane.
Do they? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 18:22:25 GMT -5
Postmodernists by contrast knowingly and willingly support a philosophy that permits child rape and wife-beating as long as the majority of a culture supports it. Bob
No, they don't. And you have no evidence to prove that they do. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 22:45:55 GMT -5
Postmodernists by contrast knowingly and willingly support a philosophy that permits child rape and wife-beating as long as the majority of a culture supports it. Bob
No, they don't. And you have no evidence to prove that they do.
Sure I do.
Postmodernists believe that there are no meta-narratives, that what is ethical for one culture may not be ethical in another culture.
This means that child rape and wife-beating are moral if the majority of a culture believes they are moral.
And a Postmodernist would then have to say that child rape and wife-beating are indeed moral for that society.
Postmodernists are in a bind. Either they have to claim that there are cultures where child rape and wife-beating are moral, or they have to admit that there are meta-narratives, that child rape and wife-beating are cruel abominations and should not be condoned in any society at any time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 26, 2019 9:39:04 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 11:36:56 GMT -5
No, they don't. And you have no evidence to prove that they do. Sure I do. No, you don't. Your bullshit reasoning is not evidence or proof, except for your willingness to attack people who think differently and, for example, do not condone concentration camps or genocide the way you are. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2019 13:46:59 GMT -5
No, you don't. Your bullshit reasoning is not evidence or proof, except for your willingness to attack people who think differently and, for example, do not condone concentration camps or genocide the way you are.
Gee McAnswer, you say I have no proof but you forgot to include the part of my post where I provided proof. Here it is again:
When someone gives a logical argument, it usually helps if you give a reasoned reply instead of just DOGMATICALLY CLAIMING that it isn't so.
You do have a logical, point-by-point refutation, don't you? 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 17:37:35 GMT -5
Why is that relevant? Truth is not determined by a government court.
Truth is not determined by unsupported claims either. Please give supporting evidence.
Bob
Therefore, I find it a plausible conclusion that he has raped at least one of them, making him a rapist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 17:38:47 GMT -5
No, you don't. Your bullshit reasoning is not evidence or proof, except for your willingness to attack people who think differently and, for example, do not condone concentration camps or genocide the way you are. Gee McAnswer, you say I have no proof but you forgot to include the part of my post where I provided proof. Yes, I "forgot" to include the part of your post where you provide no direct quotes, no sources, and no other evidence from the physical world that exists outside your head.
You have presented no supporting evidence, only repeated your own baseless speculations over and over and over.
You seem to be argueing that if Bob Marks believes something very strongly, then he doesn't need to support his beliefs with empirical evidence; that it is enough that he is very convinced of the truthiness of his thoughts. Is that so?
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 26, 2019 17:54:39 GMT -5
Truth is not determined by unsupported claims either. Please give supporting evidence.
Bob
Therefore, I find it a plausible conclusion that he has raped at least one of them, making him a rapist.
So happens, Ivana (Trump's former wife) says that isn't true. This was widely reported as her "lawyer's maneuver" to get more cash during the divorce settlement. That's her "correction" to a false report. abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204--Debutante |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2019 19:51:49 GMT -5
Gee McAnswer, you say I have no proof but you forgot to include the part of my post where I provided proof. Yes, I "forgot" to include the part of your post where you provide no direct quotes, no sources, and no other evidence from the physical world that exists outside your head. You have presented no supporting evidence, only repeated your own baseless speculations over and over and over. You mean I'm just like Kant? As usual you provide no direct quotes of what I actually said to back up your claims. You are making it all up.
If you had actual evidence that what I said was wrong, you would be QUOTING WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID so that you could show why it was wrong. But if you did that, people would easily see that I was right. 
When someone gives a logical argument, it usually helps if you give a reasoned reply instead of just DOGMATICALLY CLAIMING that it isn't so. You do have a logical, point-by-point refutation of what I said, don't you? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2019 19:55:04 GMT -5
Truth is not determined by unsupported claims either. Please give supporting evidence.
Bob
Therefore, I find it a plausible conclusion that he has raped at least one of them, making him a rapist.
Non-Sequitur.
"Plausible" is not proof.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 5:03:00 GMT -5
Therefore, I find it a plausible conclusion that he has raped at least one of them, making him a rapist.
Non-Sequitur.
"Plausible" is not proof.
Bob
I don't need proof if I believe in something very very strongly and make logical arguments that sound convincing to myself. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 12:10:56 GMT -5
Non-Sequitur.
"Plausible" is not proof.
Bob
I don't need proof if I believe in something very very strongly and make logical arguments that sound convincing to myself.
If you don't demand proof for yourself, that's your business. But when you discuss issues with other people, proof is necessary.
Your arguments may sound convincing to yourself. But there may be flaws that you missed. Other people with other viewpoints would be able to point these flaws out to you. And you could do the same for their arguments.
In fact, that's the purpose of the FACTS Board.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 12:26:22 GMT -5
I don't need proof if I believe in something very very strongly and make logical arguments that sound convincing to myself. If you don't demand proof for yourself, that's your business. But when you discuss issues with other people, proof is necessary.
Your arguments may sound convincing to yourself. But there may be flaws that you missed. Other people with other viewpoints would be able to point these flaws out to you. And you could do the same for their arguments. In fact, that's the purpose of the FACTS Board. Bob
Actually, it's myself who determines whether my proofs are sufficient and correct, not you. Therefore, I can claim that I have supplied sufficient evidence to conclusively prove my point regardless of your opinion towards my evidence.
That's in fact the purpose of the FACTS Board: To assert things that sound true to myself, and defend them against incorrect-believers who are irrational idiots by definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 12:54:29 GMT -5
If you don't demand proof for yourself, that's your business. But when you discuss issues with other people, proof is necessary. Your arguments may sound convincing to yourself. But there may be flaws that you missed. Other people with other viewpoints would be able to point these flaws out to you. And you could do the same for their arguments. In fact, that's the purpose of the FACTS Board. Actually, it's myself who determines whether my proofs are sufficient and correct, not you. Therefore, I can claim that I have supplied sufficient evidence to conclusively prove my point regardless of your opinion towards my evidence. Well, that does seem to explain many of your posts. Defend? How? Using what criteria? The only criteria recognized on this Board are logic and FACTS. Bob |
|
