Two small reminders of our nation's big problem
Comments
-
@reformed said:
HAHAHAHA for someone who says we shouldn't label people but let people label themselves, you are quite teh hypocrite!In response to the more than 1,000 words I posted to demonstrate the truth of my claims via objective facts and evidence, the best you can do is call me a hypocrite.
I could write a lengthy post on the subject of labeling to explain my word choice, but it would be wasted effort. At issue in this thread is President Trump's character and conduct as displayed by his words and actions.
In this thread I have offered posts filled with specific and documented assertions of fact about the president's - and before that, the then-candidate's - statements and actions. And I have addressed directly, specifically, and with links to verifiable, objective truth your few substantive responses to my claims.
In response, you call me a hypocrite.
If you don't like the Trumpster stuff in my posts, judge it and toss it. AND THEN deal directly and specifically with my assertions of fact.
Just do one!!!
The timeline I cited, each date and each summation of that date's events accurate and factual: How ELSE should we objectively understand that sequence of events in the summer of 2016 other than as evidence that Donald Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, then cancelled his "major speech" about the Clintons when that meeting failed to produce the dirt he expected?
EDIT:
In a prediction about the outcome of your being what I called a "genuine Trumpster," in my last response to you I wrote this... (emphasis added)"You are a genuine Trumpster, reformed, which means you will not respond directly to the objective facts I have presented in this post. You will attack me, or offer other slippery attempts to divert attention away from those facts, but you will not address them directly."
Given your 19 word reply to those objective facts, I'd say my prediction was pretty much spot on.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
HAHAHAHA for someone who says we shouldn't label people but let people label themselves, you are quite teh hypocrite!In response to the more than 1,000 words I posted to demonstrate the truth of my claims via objective facts and evidence, the best you can do is call me a hypocrite.
I could write a lengthy post on the subject of labeling to explain my word choice, but it would be wasted effort. At issue in this thread is President Trump's character and conduct as displayed by his words and actions.
In this thread I have offered posts filled with specific and documented assertions of fact about the president's - and before that, the then-candidate's - statements and actions. And I have addressed directly, specifically, and with links to verifiable, objective truth your few substantive responses to my claims.
In response, you call me a hypocrite.
If you don't like the Trumpster stuff in my posts, judge it and toss it. AND THEN deal directly and specifically with my assertions of fact.
Just do one!!!
The timeline I cited, each date and each summation of that date's events accurate and factual: How ELSE should we objectively understand that sequence of events in the summer of 2016 other than as evidence that Donald Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, then cancelled his "major speech" about the Clintons when that meeting failed to produce the dirt he expected?
EDIT:
In a prediction about the outcome of your being what I called a "genuine Trumpster," in my last response to you I wrote this... (emphasis added)"You are a genuine Trumpster, reformed, which means you will not respond directly to the objective facts I have presented in this post. You will attack me, or offer other slippery attempts to divert attention away from those facts, but you will not address them directly."
Given your 19 word reply to those objective facts, I'd say my prediction was pretty much spot on.
Quite honestly I quit reading after I saw where it was going with the "Trumpster" label. You are a hypocrite. You have no credibility.
-
Besides @Bill_Coley I don't have time for people who live in a fantasy world.
-
@reformed said:
Quite honestly I quit reading after I saw where it was going with the "Trumpster" label. You are a hypocrite. You have no credibility.
Besides @Bill_Coley I don't have time for people who live in a fantasy world.
And here you offer more distraction from the fact you haven't and, more importantly, can't demonstrate that any of my assertions of fact in our current exchange is untrue. In the phrase I used in my exchange with Gao Lu, here you offer more rhetorical sand.
You can complain about the "Trumpster" label, call me a hypocrite, and tell me I "live in a fantasy world," but you can't deny that the June 2016 chronology I provided earlier is factually accurate and, to an objective observer, is most reasonably interpreted as evidence that candidate Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, announced a "major speech" about the Clintons because he expected dirt to come from that meeting, then nixed the speech entirely when the meeting failed to produce.
How do I know that to be true? Because if you COULD prove that something I said was untrue - if there was a more reasonable interpretation of the events of the chronology - the satisfaction you'd experience from shoving my forum face in links that made your case and proved me wrong would FAR exceed that from the adolescent snark of calling me a hypocrite. But in this case, as in most every case when you and I debate facts, evidence, and the conclusions reasonably drawn therefrom, you can't prove me wrong. My assertions of fact are true. My conclusions are reasonable. And even if you could get over the hurt of my calling you a Trumpster, there's simply no evidence you could cite to prevail in this argument.
After the events of the last week, reformed, I am more convinced than ever that a day of reckoning is coming for Donald Trump and Trumpster Nation:
- Mueller and Company are clearly closing in
- Michael Cohen seems ready to flip
- The Trump organization's CFO, Allen Weisselberg, who has been with Trump for decades and knows better than anyone where the president's (Russian?) financial skeletons are buried, has been subpoenaed by a grand jury in New York
- The president is feeling the heat, and is bound to say and do crazier and crazier things as the pressure builds
- And most important, basically EVERY time there's a significant disclosure in the Russia probe, it's bad news for Trump. We NEVER learn of exculpatory evidence from one of the principles or from the case's many court filings. It's ALWAYS more reasons to believe there were improper connections between the Trump team and the Russian government.
I encourage you to start preparing now. A day of reckoning IS coming. The president is going to learn that even though his followers don't care if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue (or colludes/conspires with Russians to affect a presidential election) our justice and political systems do.
-
Other people aren't feeling your fear, Bill. Neither are they (except C_M_) commiserating by lying on their backs kicking feet in the air, flailing fists at perceived enemies, howling out their anger as if anyone around cares.
The fever of your fear is making you slip. Bill--the man who finds facts and proof in internet links! The man who stands proudly on a mountain of facts mined from whatever twisted trash his personal list of media sources can conjure up.
Well...there you have some real Bill-cred! And he demands others behave like him!
No thanks.
-
@GaoLu said:
Other people aren't feeling your fear, Bill. Neither are they (except C_M_) commiserating by lying on their backs kicking feet in the air, flailing fists at perceived enemies, howling out their anger as if anyone around cares.The fever of your fear is making you slip. Bill--the man who finds facts and proof in internet links! The man who stands proudly on a mountain of facts mined from whatever twisted trash his personal list of media sources can conjure up.
Well...there you have some real Bill-cred! And he demands others behave like him!
No thanks.
More rhetorical sand.
More distraction and evasion.
I asked you to prove, not just claim. You respond with more claims and no proof.
This time you claim I "(mine)" my facts from "whatever twisted trash (my) list of media sources can conjure up." What you don't claim, however, is that any of my previous assertions of fact is actually false. I guess that's progress, especially if you didn't claim any of them is false because you know none of them is false.
Sand-laden snark is and likely will always be part and parcel of your posting MO, Gao Lu. But I take it as progress that in at least this one post, you chose to steer clear of demonstrably false and misleading claims... kind of like our president who on the rare occasions he sticks to the teleprompter, actually completes a speech or event without giving fact checkers multiple errors to identify and correct. I grant that such falsehood control damages the Trumpster brand, but neither the president nor his minions stay tuned to the truth for very long, so I'm confident the brand is in no serious danger.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Quite honestly I quit reading after I saw where it was going with the "Trumpster" label. You are a hypocrite. You have no credibility.
Besides @Bill_Coley I don't have time for people who live in a fantasy world.
And here you offer more distraction from the fact you haven't and, more importantly, can't demonstrate that any of my assertions of fact in our current exchange is untrue. In the phrase I used in my exchange with Gao Lu, here you offer more rhetorical sand.
You can complain about the "Trumpster" label, call me a hypocrite, and tell me I "live in a fantasy world," but you can't deny that the June 2016 chronology I provided earlier is factually accurate and, to an objective observer, is most reasonably interpreted as evidence that candidate Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, announced a "major speech" about the Clintons because he expected dirt to come from that meeting, then nixed the speech entirely when the meeting failed to produce.
Even with that timeline being true. Who cares? If you were the candidate, would you not also try and get that dirt? That's not collusion Bill. That is opposition research. Note, the Clinton campaign did the same thing, only theirs, the dossier, was made up.
How do I know that to be true? Because if you COULD prove that something I said was untrue - if there was a more reasonable interpretation of the events of the chronology - the satisfaction you'd experience from shoving my forum face in links that made your case and proved me wrong would FAR exceed that from the adolescent snark of calling me a hypocrite. But in this case, as in most every case when you and I debate facts, evidence, and the conclusions reasonably drawn therefrom, you can't prove me wrong. My assertions of fact are true. My conclusions are reasonable. And even if you could get over the hurt of my calling you a Trumpster, there's simply no evidence you could cite to prevail in this argument.
You are still a hypocrite. I'm not hurt, I'm showing how two-faced and hypocritical and "holier than thou" you are. Typical liberal.
After the events of the last week, reformed, I am more convinced than ever that a day of reckoning is coming for Donald Trump and Trumpster Nation:
- Mueller and Company are clearly closing in
Doubtful
- Michael Cohen seems ready to flip
Ok?
- The Trump organization's CFO, Allen Weisselberg, who has been with Trump for decades and knows better than anyone where the president's (Russian?) financial skeletons are buried, has been subpoenaed by a grand jury in New York
Ok?
- The president is feeling the heat, and is bound to say and do crazier and crazier things as the pressure builds
And what crazy things is he doing?
- And most important, basically EVERY time there's a significant disclosure in the Russia probe, it's bad news for Trump. We NEVER learn of exculpatory evidence from one of the principles or from the case's many court filings. It's ALWAYS more reasons to believe there were improper connections between the Trump team and the Russian government.
No, that's just your bias showing. Most "significant" disclosures as you say just prove further that there was no collusion.
I encourage you to start preparing now. A day of reckoning IS coming. The president is going to learn that even though his followers don't care if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue (or colludes/conspires with Russians to affect a presidential election) our justice and political systems do.
The funny thing is, there is nothing against the law about collusion, so even if there were, what reckoning is coming?
Besides, nothing you said above fits the definition of collusion anyway as I showed in my other post.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Other people aren't feeling your fear, Bill. Neither are they (except C_M_) commiserating by lying on their backs kicking feet in the air, flailing fists at perceived enemies, howling out their anger as if anyone around cares.The fever of your fear is making you slip. Bill--the man who finds facts and proof in internet links! The man who stands proudly on a mountain of facts mined from whatever twisted trash his personal list of media sources can conjure up.
Well...there you have some real Bill-cred! And he demands others behave like him!
No thanks.
More rhetorical sand.
Must have struck a sensitive nerve, that got a reaction! Bill, you may not know its true (which I doubt) but others can see your behavior described above crisp as August sunshine.
More distraction and evasion.
I asked you to prove, not just claim. You respond with more claims and no proof.
I see your desperation to keep making the same smoke because it's the best tool you have to fight your perceived enemies (although you also do well with extended spats of angry name-calling).
My point is that you don't know anything on most these matters and can prove nothing. Oh you claim proof: some internet link to a partisan rumor mill is the best you offer. And you want others to do that? Nah. We aren't interested.
I don't claim false proof from silly internet diatribes. Mostly I don't have any proof about politics and if there is one thing I know for sure--neither do you. Your claim for political facts and all you know that bolsters your tantrums against the President is so far-fetched that I have totally lost respect for your arguments.
Make an honest one now and then and that respect could return. Admit that you haven't a clue whether or not the President is lying. Admit that you tweak and twist and distort almost every opinion you share on here. What you do is called trolling in most circles--posting junk you can't possibly believe to stir up responses because you get some personal thrill from doing that--attention for a starved soul.
Yeah, I am just shining a spotlight on it. Watch the flurry of response! It will be worth watching with a deluxe burger and fries,
This time you claim I "(mine)" my facts from "whatever twisted trash (my) list of media sources can conjure up." What you don't claim, however, is that any of my previous assertions of fact is actually false. I guess that's progress, especially if you didn't claim any of them is false because you know none of them is false.
Exactly. You may be getting the point. Of course I don't know and have no way to prove what is true and what isn't. You claim you do and your proofs are something from a comic book--more absurd that flat-earth theories. The point is that you don't know diddly squat to people that you do.
We remain here to comfort you, to hold your hand through your difficult time, Bill.
Sand-laden snark is and likely will always be part and parcel of your posting MO, Gao Lu.
I have learned a lot about the insincerity of politics from you.
I don't care for Trump and never did--I didn't vote for him. I do respect him because...
1. God says to do so (which you blatantly reject)
2. God put him where he is
3. He is doing a phenomenally great job
4. He frankly couldn't care less about angry fit-throwers and they have no influence over him whatsoever.But I take it as progress that in at least this one post, you chose to steer clear of demonstrably false and misleading claims... kind of like our president who on the rare occasions he sticks to the teleprompter, actually completes a speech or event without giving fact checkers multiple errors to identify and correct.
steer clear of false claims by Bill--Exactly! I don't know what happens from the media. Frankly, I don't care a lot. However, watching a Democrat tantrum is both amusing and disturbing. One can't help but worry that liberals might actually think they are accomplishing something by their red-faced antics. And the compassionate side of me cares about their pain--even if it is self-inflicted and deserved.
I grant that such falsehood control damages the Trumpster brand, but neither the president nor his minions stay tuned to the truth for very long, so I'm confident the brand is in no serious danger.
Slander, reviler--dude--you are the master. Nevertheless, here is a message Trump and his administration can take to heart:
Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Pet 3:16
What can you expect, Bill?
-
P.S.
Good news! I just heard that the Fit throwers are exhausted and someone had a bright idea for them (almost certainly a Republican). Everytime you think Trump tells a lie about the environment (or anything for that matter), go plant a tree!
Wonderful idea! Think of the forests that Democrats could plant! We could send them around the world to distant jungles to plant in slash and burn areas (natives won't destroy all of the planters). If you have a conscience and you care about your Party, then Go! Go ye into all the world. Don't be a fraud! Plant trees--one for each lie! Bill--this is for you--if you believe what you have been saying here, please tell us you are going to deepest darkest jungles to plant trees for all these 1000's of lies you claim to be able to prove.
Bye, Bill!
-
@reformed said:
Even with that timeline being true. Who cares? If you were the candidate, would you not also try and get that dirt? That's not collusion Bill. That is opposition research. Note, the Clinton campaign did the same thing, only theirs, the dossier, was made up.- No. Were I a candidate, I ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT EVER seek out or accept political "dirt" from a foreign government, ESPECIALLY not a foreign government that was an adversary of the United States, a nation which forcibly "annexes" neighboring nations, and imprisons and assassinates journalists and political opponents. Whether technically "legal" or not, surreptitious cooperative efforts with such a nation for personal political gain would be an offense to my understanding of our democracy. Are you saying that were you an American presidential candidate, you WOULD accept secretive political dirt on your opponent(s) from Russia? (One tip off to the ethically/morally/legally-challenged nature of the Trump campaign's connections with Russians is the extent to which its members repeatedly lied about it. Remember when Trump and company said "no one" in the campaign had had ANY contacts with Russians? Now we know the number of such contacts was more than 80.)
- "Collusion" is the act of secretive cooperation for a harmful purpose. That the Trump campaign took the Trump Tower meeting expecting dirt on Clinton from the Russian government proves they were willing to cooperate with Russia. That the campaign repeatedly lied about the meeting's purpose as well as its many other contacts with Russians proves they wanted the cooperation to be secretive. Was their cooperation for a harmful purpose? If the campaign or its candidate did ANYTHING to endorse, embrace, request, or cover-up the illegal conduct with which Mueller's team has - and possibly still will - charge Russians, OR if campaign members committed crimes in those cooperative efforts, then YES, the cooperation was CLEARLY for a harmful purpose.
Bottom line: We're not far from collusion now, and the big name indictments are still to come from Mueller and Company. [NOTE: In the law, people who collude with others in the execution of illegal acts can be charged with the crime called conspiracy, not collusion. That is, if the Russians broke the law in their hacking into DNC and other email accounts, and Trump campaign officials in way assisted or contributed to those illegal efforts, the campaign people could face conspiracy charges.]
You are still a hypocrite. I'm not hurt, I'm showing how two-faced and hypocritical and "holier than thou" you are. Typical liberal.
I hope this attitude toward me helps you.
After the events of the last week, reformed, I am more convinced than ever that a day of reckoning is coming for Donald Trump and Trumpster Nation:
- Mueller and Company are clearly closing in
Doubtful
I think all you have to do is read Trump's Twitter feed, especially today! As the walls close in and the pressure builds, we'll see more and more outbursts like today's from the president. As a rule, innocent people don't lash out at those investigating their actions the way Trump has lashed out at Mueller. But guilty people....
- Michael Cohen seems ready to flip
Ok?
Cohen is a person who knows where Trump's skeletons are buried. That's NOT a person you want to "flip" on you.
The latest reporting is that the joint defense agreement between Cohen and Trump has ended (which is both practically and symbolically significant) and Cohen believes he is sitting on a "treasure trove" of information about Trump that could "complicate" the president's life. Sounds ominous to me.
- The Trump organization's CFO, Allen Weisselberg, who has been with Trump for decades and knows better than anyone where the president's (Russian?) financial skeletons are buried, has been subpoenaed by a grand jury in New York
Ok?
Weisselberg has been with the Trumps for decades. He knows where all the financial skeletons are buried. If Trump is compromised because of financial dealings with Russia, Weisselberg likely knows the details. He's not someone you want to "flip" on you either (though some experts think Weisselberg will plead the fifth).
- The president is feeling the heat, and is bound to say and do crazier and crazier things as the pressure builds
And what crazy things is he doing?
Read his Twitter feed today.
- And most important, basically EVERY time there's a significant disclosure in the Russia probe, it's bad news for Trump. We NEVER learn of exculpatory evidence from one of the principles or from the case's many court filings. It's ALWAYS more reasons to believe there were improper connections between the Trump team and the Russian government.
No, that's just your bias showing. Most "significant" disclosures as you say just prove further that there was no collusion.
Please provide me a link to fact-based information about any "significant disclosure" in the Russian probe that "prove(d) further that there was no collusion." I know of no such disclosures.
I encourage you to start preparing now. A day of reckoning IS coming. The president is going to learn that even though his followers don't care if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue (or colludes/conspires with Russians to affect a presidential election) our justice and political systems do.
The funny thing is, there is nothing against the law about collusion, so even if there were, what reckoning is coming?
See above. In the law, the crime is conspiracy, not collusion. People who collude with others in the commission of crimes can be charged with conspiracy.
Besides, nothing you said above fits the definition of collusion anyway as I showed in my other post.
See above. In my view, we are quite close to collusion now. The only missing piece is harmful intent, and that's not hard to infer from currently available information.
-
@GaoLu said:
Must have struck a sensitive nerve, that got a reaction! Bill, you may not know its true (which I doubt) but others can see your behavior described above crisp as August sunshine.What others see in my "behavior described above" is not at issue in this thread. What IS at issue the conduct and credibility of President Trump. Specific to our exchange in this thread, at issue initially was your response to the following question:
"The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else?"
As I waited for your direct response to that question, I asked you to prove various false and off-topic assertions of fact that you made. You chose - wisely, I think - not to try to prove those assertions, given that they were in fact false.
I see your desperation to keep making the same smoke because it's the best tool you have to fight your perceived enemies (although you also do well with extended spats of angry name-calling).
No. I simply ask you prove the facts you assert. The problem is that though you're willing to assert - quite loquaciously (see the following paragraphs!) - you're almost never willing to prove. It's clear that you see it differently, but I think it's telling- and not in a good way - when people repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims about others. Our exchange in this thread - and your latest post in particular - demonstrates that you're a person who's willing to accuse, but not willing to prove.
My point is that you don't know anything on most these matters and can prove nothing. Oh you claim proof: some internet link to a partisan rumor mill is the best you offer. And you want others to do that? Nah. We aren't interested.
All I ask is that you be "interested" enough to prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "don't know anything on most these matters and can prove nothing" is demonstrably false, your claim about the role of "partisan rumor mill(s)" in my presentation of evidence to support my claims notwithstanding.
I don't claim false proof from silly internet diatribes. Mostly I don't have any proof about politics and if there is one thing I know for sure--neither do you. Your claim for political facts and all you know that bolsters your tantrums against the President is so far-fetched that I have totally lost respect for your arguments.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "don't have any proof about politics" is demonstrably false, your off-topic loss of "respect for (my) arguments" notwithstanding.
Make an honest one now and then and that respect could return. Admit that you haven't a clue whether or not the President is lying. Admit that you tweak and twist and distort almost every opinion you share on here. What you do is called trolling in most circles--posting junk you can't possibly believe to stir up responses because you get some personal thrill from doing that--attention for a starved soul.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "haven't a clue whether or not the President is lying" is demonstrably false, your off-topic allegation of my "trolling" behavior notwithstanding.
Exactly. You may be getting the point. Of course I don't know and have no way to prove what is true and what isn't. You claim you do and your proofs are something from a comic book--more absurd that flat-earth theories. The point is that you don't know diddly squat to people that you do.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "don't know diddly squat to people that you do" is demonstrably false (I think; though the meaning of your phrase "to people that you do" is not clear to me), your concern that my "proofs are something from a comic book--more absurd that [sic] flat-earth theories" notwithstanding.
I don't care for Trump and never did--I didn't vote for him. I do respect him because...
1. God says to do so (which you blatantly reject)
2. God put him where he is
3. He is doing a phenomenally great job
4. He frankly couldn't care less about angry fit-throwers and they have no influence over him whatsoever.In the same paragraph, you claim BOTH that you "don't care for Trump and never did" AND that he's "doing a phenomenally great job."
- Why don't you "care for Trump" when he's doing such a "phenomenally great job"?
- If you "don't care for Trump and never did," why in THIS POST did you write this... (emphasis added)
"Trump is an amazing President and my respect is rising daily. The real credit all goes to God, who is blessing America for changes to behave in ways nearer His heart, small as those changes may be. If America will continue to repent and change her ways, we can only imagine the blessing God might pour out on her. I am thankful for the gift from God of a President at the helm bringing about these changes.
You "don't care" for "amazing" presidents for whom your respect is "rising daily"?
- And if you "don't care for Trump and never did," then why in THIS POST did you write this...
"Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America."
You "don't care" for presidents who lead as none has since Reagan? for presidents who are God's blessing on America?
- And if you "don't care for Trump and never have," why in THIS POST did you write this....
"So thankful for Trump and a much better system in place today by a better administration."
You "don't care" for presidents for whom you are "so thankful," who put in place "much better" systems and conduct "much better" administrations?
- And finally (I could offer more) if you "don't care for Trump and never have," then why in THIS POST did you write.... (emphasis added)
"Amazing how Trump just gets business, Asian markets and culture, international relations, and leadership. A truly amazing man. He was not my choice at all for President (given his personality and past escapades) and yet he has proven to be changed, a great man, a great leader, clearly God’s will and America’s choice. His ratings are as high or higher than Obama or even Reagan at this point in spite of the culture of Denocrat’s hate and dishonest, poisonous media and small-minded lemmings who feed on that trash. Amazing President. I am thankful every day.
You "don't care" for "amazing" presidents for whom you are "thankful every day," who "just (get) business," who "(prove) to be changed, a great man, a great leader, clearly God's will and America's choice"?
[NOTE: I didn't pull those quotes from a "comic book," a "flat earth (theory)", or some "partisan rumor mill." I pulled them directly from your posts in CD threads.]
steer clear of false claims by Bill--Exactly! I don't know what happens from the media. Frankly, I don't care a lot. However, watching a Democrat tantrum is both amusing and disturbing. One can't help but worry that liberals might actually think they are accomplishing something by their red-faced antics. And the compassionate side of me cares about their pain--even if it is self-inflicted and deserved.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that... well, there isn't much of a claim here.
Slander, reviler--dude--you are the master. Nevertheless, here is a message Trump and his administration can take to heart:
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim of "slander" is demonstrably false, your kind willingness to call me "dude" notwithstanding.
Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Pet 3:16
What can you expect, Bill?
I can expect that I will back up my assertions of fact in our exchanges, and that you will not back up yours.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
What others see in my "behavior described above" is not at issue in this thread.
Yes, it is.
I asked you to prove various false and off-topic assertions of fact that you made. You chose - wisely, I think - not to try to prove those assertions, given that they were in fact false.
Bill and his imaginary facts. I have mainly one assertion which I repeat ad nasueum: You, Bill don't know anything for a fact and yet you demand that fake news from hate-filled sources is your only authority. What an authority to have in your life! Trust me on this--there is a better authority available.
I see your desperation to keep making the same smoke because it's the best tool you have to fight your perceived enemies (although you also do well with extended spats of angry name-calling).
No. I simply ask you prove the facts you assert.
The only facts I am interested in asserting are those in the Bible. All your politics is a pile of rubbish. You can keep eating from the pile if you want, but I won't feed on your manna. I do find engaging to point out your representation of a godless sector of societies absurdities. How true the Bible is when it describes such behavior!
Yes Bill, you only make smoke. And how you defend that smoke!
The problem is that though you're willing to assert - quite loquaciously (see the following paragraphs!) -
I try to be honest and am clear that I offer no proof, not do I have any proof. Neither do you. You will see very many times that that is my chief assertion here. I find amusing that you remain either blind to that or just can't accept the obvious. It's like: Bang bang bang! On your high chair. Like a child who wants his cheerios and wants them now! Bang bang bang! Oh, Bill.....poor Bill.
you're almost never willing to prove. It's clear that you see it differently,
I have been telling you that.
but I think it's telling- and not in a good way - when people repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims about others.
My claim is that you don't know what you are talking about and you storm around offering your poofy proofs, crying "Internet! Give me a link!" Dude--if that is your best proof, you should try the Bible. Yes, I know, you reject that.
Our exchange in this thread - and your latest post in particular - demonstrates that you're a person who's willing to accuse, but not willing to prove.
Is that so. Got a link from the internet to prove it? Try Google.
Proving something to a man who bases his proof on absurdity would be futile. I have little interest in trying to persuade you of anything. That is rarely if ever my reason for engaging you here. That really makes your limited arsenal of smoke screens and red herrings and personal attacks impotent--I know.
My point is that you don't know anything on most these matters and can prove nothing. Oh you claim proof: some internet link to a partisan rumor mill is the best you offer. And you want others to do that? Nah. We aren't interested.
All I ask is that you be "interested" enough to prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "don't know anything on most these matters and can prove nothing" is demonstrably false, your claim about the role of "partisan rumor mill(s)" in my presentation of evidence to support my claims notwithstanding.
Why would I bother? That fact that you believe such nonsense at all is merely amusing--like something the cat left on the stair. Why engage a nothing burger? No one kicks a dead dog. Your whole kennel is dead. Nah, I won't bother. That is not why I engage you.
I don't claim false proof from silly internet diatribes. Mostly I don't have any proof about politics and if there is one thing I know for sure--neither do you. Your claim for political facts and all you know that bolsters your tantrums against the President is so far-fetched that I have totally lost respect for your arguments.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that I "don't have any proof about politics" is demonstrably false, your off-topic loss of "respect for (my) arguments" notwithstanding.
You have never proven one true, nor can you. Why on earth prove a false fact wrong? How stupid do you think people are? I know...your politics lives on that. It's all you have.
Ditto...ditto...ditto all your other points where, lacking new tools you repeat the same thing.
I don't care for Trump and never did--I didn't vote for him. I do respect him because...
1. God says to do so (which you blatantly reject)
2. God put him where he is
3. He is doing a phenomenally great job
4. He frankly couldn't care less about angry fit-throwers and they have no influence over him whatsoever.In the same paragraph, you claim BOTH that you "don't care for Trump and never did" AND that he's "doing a phenomenally great job."
That's right. Got a problem with that?
You "don't care" for "amazing" presidents for whom your respect is "rising daily"?
Regarding Trump, that is right. I said so clearly.
- And if you "don't care for Trump and never did," then why in THIS POST did you write this...
"Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America."
Because it is true. You can only speak hate except for someone who is in your Party? Can you only admire a man who fits your political preference of the day? Do you live in a world where you can only respect a person whom you personally like? I wonder who that would be? No, I don't. Sad. Telling about your kind. Small minded. How lacking in vision and power and influence. And how informative for the rest of us.
For the record, I do not like Trump as a personality. Never did. I don't appreciate his antics and style and his immoral past. Yet I do recognize God using the man mightily in America. He stands for Christian values as no President in recent decades has done. He is doing an unprecedented job leading America to greatness. I hope I am very clear to you.
I realize you have likely never been able to think that way. You find it infuriating because it does not fit your hate-enemies paradigm. I hope this can be something new for you.
All I ask is that you prove that even ONE of my assertions of fact in our exchange is incorrect. If you can't do that - and you can't - then your claim that... well, there isn't much of a claim here.
I keep wondering what claim you are referring to. I make mainly one here--that you don't know diddly squat and yet you slander and malign like the devil himself based on packs of "internet facts." I am calling you out as a fake and a fraud.
On top of that, you insist that others behave like you. Blech.
Slander, reviler--dude--you are the master. Nevertheless, here is a message Trump and his administration can take to heart:
Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Pet 3:16
What can you expect, Bill?
I can expect that I will back up my assertions of fact in our exchanges, and that you will not back up yours.
I won't back up political opinions with facts that don't exist. You do, and we take it for what its worth as demonstrated in these threads.
-
The word salad that is your latest response, Gao Lu, prompts only two observations from me:
- Despite my previous post's offering you six different invitations to prove that EVEN ONE of my assertions of fact was incorrect, you present no such proof. Predictably, you toss around invective such as "nonsense," "imaginary facts," "fake news," "rubbish," and my personal favorite, "poofy proofs," but not once do you demonstrate that even one of my assertions of fact was untrue. That tells me - and I think tells any objective observer - that you can't prove any of them true... because, as I've repeated multiple times, they're all true... objectively true.
Our exchange in this thread reduces to a dispute over the existence of objective truth. I contend that my assertions of fact about Donald Trump communicate objective truth. You contend that that my assertions can't be proven, that I have "never proven one," to use your words.
Note the result of our respective approaches:
- I contend it is objectively true that on July 14, Robert Mueller and company indicted 12 Russians for their roles in Russian intrusion into our 2016 election. You contend I can't prove that.
- I contend it is objectively true that in November 2016, Hope Hicks, then a campaign spokesperson, said the campaign had "no knowledge" of a $150,000 payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal. You contend I can't prove that.
- I contend it is objectively true that on July 23 of this year, Donald Trump tweeted that the Steele dossier "was responsible for starting" the Mueller probe, and that the claim of Trump's tweet was false. Even though I included Trump's tweet in my post, you say I can't prove that.
- I claim it is objectively true that the Washington Post maintains a list of Trump's false or misleading statements that now contains more than 3,000 items. You contend I can't prove that.
- I contend it is objectively true that originally, Trump and company claimed that the president had no role in drafting the White House statement that described the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting as being about adoptions (when it was actually called for the purpose of passing along political dirt on Clinton) and that the Trump legal team much later submitted a legal filing to a Court in which they acknowledged that the president had "dictated" the statement. You contend I can't prove either of those things.
I could contend it is objectively true that "up" is a two letter word, and I bet you would contend I can't prove that.
The issue between us is whether objective truth - assertions of fact whose truthfulness in no way depends on the identity or motivations of their source - exists. I say it does. You say it doesn't.
Your denial of the existence of objective truth produces two outcomes: 1) It reaffirms your identity as a genuine Trumpster, a community of people for whom truth is transactional, not objective; and 2) It renders pointless any discussion of facts between us.
- Your latest post makes necessary a word of thanks for the entertainment offered by your flailing attempt to explain how you STILL "don't care for Trump and never did" while at the same time, as your CD posts make clear, you consider him to be "clearly God's will," a "great leader," a "great man," and an "amazing president" for whom your "respect" is "rising."
Your meandering adventure in search of an explanation of the blatant discrepancy in your views was quite entertaining. Let us know if you come up with any better way to square that circle.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The word salad that is your latest response, Gao Lu, prompts only two observations from me:- Despite my previous post's offering you six different invitations to prove that EVEN ONE of my assertions of fact was incorrect, you present no such proof. Predictably, you toss around invective such as "nonsense," "imaginary facts," "fake news," "rubbish," and my personal favorite, "poofy proofs," but not once do you demonstrate that even one of my assertions of fact was untrue. That tells me - and I think tells any objective observer - that you can't prove any of them true... because, as I've repeated multiple times, they're all true... objectively true.
Exactly. 6 pointless repetitions of the same nonsense. Yet we are patient with you. Time and again (helpful for slow learners) I invite you to understand, much to your personal fury, that I offer no proof for any political assertion, and seldom do I make any such foolish assertion. I have no proof, just like you have none. I know that ruins your limited political options for returning strikes to imagined enemies. But you give it your best flail anyway! There ought to be some sort of credit for that.
The whole point (again for slow learners) is that you have no proof for any of your political nonsense. You have only links to sites less trustworthy than flat-earthers offer. I shall avoid stooping to such absurdity.
So, you are right, Bill, you are gaining ground--there is little or no proof for most angry political opinions. You certainly don't offer any. I am not going to waste time disproving unprovable angry fits by mindless liberal rhetoric. I can't anyway, and if I could your kind of mind would never be convinced.
How many times will I have to repeat this until you are able to understand it?
Our exchange in this thread reduces to a dispute over the existence of objective truth.
Oh, there is plenty of objective truth. Such as the Bible (which I know you aggressively reject).
I contend that my assertions of fact about Donald Trump communicate objective truth. You contend that that my assertions can't be proven, that I have "never proven one," to use your words.
Exactly. You clearly don't know diddly squat about most of the things you assert and then proceed to infuriate yourself with. You take internet links as your personal authority. I suppose you taught your children to do the same?
I could contend it is objectively true that "up" is a two letter word, and I bet you would contend I can't prove that.
You could contend many things and some would be common sense, some would be provable, some would be conjecture. I am speaking above of the ones that are utterly absurd, lacking context, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, and you swallow the whole garbage can full with relish, eyes flashing, fingers madly jerking in sick response on a keyboard.
The issue between us is whether objective truth - assertions of fact whose truthfulness in no way depends on the identity or motivations of their source - exists. I say it does. You say it doesn't.
I say it does. You aren't offering much if any of that.
Your denial of the existence of objective truth produces two outcomes: 1) It reaffirms your identity as a genuine Trumpster, a community of people for whom truth is transactional, not objective; and
Oh Bill, you are slipping from your usual standards (high for you)...something has gotten to you down inside.
2) It renders pointless any discussion of facts between us.
If we talk about facts, I am interested. You offer sleazy internet opinions and demand others accept them as facts. Those kind of facts are meaningful for your mindset maybe, but not for me. Try Biblical facts--I know you reject those kind of facts--but I offer the invitation again.
- Your latest post makes necessary a word of thanks for the entertainment offered by your flailing attempt to explain how you STILL "don't care for Trump and never did" while at the same time, as your CD posts make clear, you consider him to be "clearly God's will," a "great leader," a "great man," and an "amazing president" for whom your "respect" is "rising."
Your meandering adventure in search of an explanation of the blatant discrepancy in your views was quite entertaining. Let us know if you come up with any better way to square that circle.
That your mind-frame is unable to grasp the statement above is very telling, very informative about your kind. I stand behind it as true and clear and lucid (Odd that I would have to say that--but for some make a difference.)
