Posted on 02/16/2024 11:45:35 AM PST by libh8er
I have already pointed out some of them, and within the last couple of days. Go look back old fart. If you still had your memory, you wouldn’t even have to ask.
Nice try, kid.
As is so typical with losers in an argument, you attempt to change the narrative. BTW, kid; that is another fallacy of yours: It’s called False Equivalence. And I already pointed that out to you in my post #96. Perhaps you missed that. Or, perhaps your reading comprehension is...well, poor.
“The answer you provided was; I think, is intentional that the laws are being ignored. The real problem with that answer is that you say you think, when actually that is in question that you actually do.”
Your grammar, punctuation, and composition suck, as well, kid.
But, I’ll try to make sense of the gibberish you wrote above.
You appear to find fault with my comment that I think Biden’s failure to enforce our border laws (i.e., immigration laws) is intentional. And you go on to say that the real problem with my comment is because that is what I think. It’s called deductive reasoning, kid: I inferred from Biden’s actions and comments relative to the border and illegal immigration that his failure to enforce our laws in that respect was intentional. Then, ironically, you go on to agree with me! You said that, “Biden is intentionally allowing illegals flood our country. You can tell by understanding his policies.”
So, are you saying that my conclusion (my answer) is illogical because I drew it; but, your exact same conclusion is...NOT illogical because YOU drew it?
And you accuse ME of playing games? Too funny!
You made the claim; you have the burden of supporting it.
You see, kid; you have employed yet another fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Truth. It’s a sure sign of a loser: Make a claim, then demand that the other party prove or disprove it.
As I said previously: If it were not for the fallacies, your comments would be a blank page.
Furthermore, you don't really care about our borders, otherwise you would get more vocal about it, but I hear nothing whatsoever from it.
Carlson-Putin interview & my opinion as a Russian
2/18/2024, 9:32:52 AM · < href='https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4217884/posts?page=75#75' target>75 of 104
ought-six to Robert DeLong; Timber Rattler
You are indeed a 9/11 truther. You and a handful of other conspiracy-theory crackpots conveniently ignore what even the perps admitted to:
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/8/al-qaeda-video-takes-credit-for-9
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies
You really are becoming quite senile old fart, for it was only 1 day ago.
You are also afraid to answer the actual question that you find every way possible to avoid answering.
You’re playing games, kid.
I can’t speculate on Biden’s concern or lack thereof and neither can you; because — as far as I know — he has not articulated his concern, or lack thereof. I can speculate on his motives, but whether or not those motives rise to concern within him I have no idea.
“Furthermore, you don’t really care about our borders, otherwise you would get more vocal about it, but I hear nothing whatsoever from it.”
Oh, I’ve been vocal about it. You see, kid; my mother was an immigrant. But she came here legally; played by the rules; jumped through the hoops; and when she became a US citizen she wept. I was there, kid. I have said on FR several times over the years that illegal immigrants are an insult to her and her memory.
Take a hint: Read my tagline; it’s been there since 2003 (i.e., more than twenty years).
“You called me a 9/11 truther merely because I mentioned what others have said. Clearly you were jumping to a conclusion, even though I never said I was a 9/11/ truther.”
Why didn’t you cite your comment from your post #65?
Because you identified yourself as a truther by your comments: “See, you keep proving my point, that we really do not know who did it. There are those who claim it was Mossad & Israel, can you say with certainty that is wasn’t? I can’t. There is even a video claiming that the celebrants of the Tower attacks were Israelis, are they? Some claim it was an inside job, and that explosives had to have been used yo bring down one or more of the towers. Some of these people making these claims, are actual engineers, not just some Joe Shmoes off the street making wild accusations.”
You went on to say, “…we were lied to with regards to the corona virus, Covid-19, as to its danger and the actions we must take to stop the spread, and they had to know they were all lies, so how can you be certain that lies were not made about what really happened to the World Towers? The distrust is our own government gas-lighting the people. That is not my fault. Like you I used to believe everything my government told me. They have destroyed my trust.”
Here is the definition of a truther, kid: “A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.”
Kinda fits you to a T, kid.
To which I said that lots of people claim responsibility for acts that they had nothing to do with at all. Happens all the time. I said Osama bin Laden may have claimed responsibility for it to elevate his credentials within the radical Muslim for all I know, or even you know. It could be a false confession.
Again we are accepting at face value without hard evidence confirming it. If you were even honest to yourself, which you are not, you would admit that what I say is true. What you provided me was not hard evidence brought forward.
Accept UBL admitted it in a video!
https://au.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day-osama-bin-laden-911-terrorist-attacks-141612118-035024678.html
https://au.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day-osama-bin-laden-911-terrorist-attacks-141612118-035024678.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654
To date, I have never seen hard evidence that confirms that he was indeed responsible.
But this discussion is far more than this minor topic, but thanks for trying.
You’re an idiot!
Well yeah, most of us keep copies of our tax returns.
You have a blessed day also. I guess the challenge was above your pay grade.
You people really need to start waking up to what is happening in this country, because trust me, it won't fare well for any of us.
“That’s a lie & You know it, I said no one can be certain that Osama bin Laden was responsibility for 9/11, which prompted you to say I was a truther and sent me links that Osama bin Laden took credit for the World Trade Center attack.”
And I sent you links that showed al-Queda even admitted it was involved.
Try as you might, kid; you aren’t walking back this one.
“Again we are accepting at face value without hard evidence confirming it.”
There was enough hard evidence to bring charges. We just have to wait for the trials of those parties who are still alive — the trials of which have been getting continued for years as the parties seek to hash out details — for verdicts to be rendered. It’s how our legal system operates; it can seem very frustrating sometimes.
You mention hard evidence (aka compelling evidence). What compelling evidence do YOU have that 9/11 was the work of the Israelis and the Mossad? Or was an inside job? Wild speculation, kid; there has been no compelling evidence presented at all to support such claims.
I think you might be confused about admissible evidence and legal proof: There are different standards for different causes of action.
Here is a very brief thumbnail description:
In civil cases, the standard is liability (or guilt) “by a preponderance of the evidence.” That means, basically, that a defendant is more likely than not responsible for an act that caused damages. In criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is — understandably — a much higher standard for the trier of fact (generally, the jury; sometimes, the judge in a bench trial). That means that the jury (or judge) can say with moral certainty that a defendant is guilty of the crime for which he or she has been charged, and thus is convicted. If the judge or jury CANNOT say with moral certainty that a person is guilty, the defendant should not be convicted.
Sorry, that is still not hard evidence.
And you still find ways to avoid the question I have repeatedly asked you multiple times now.
You are a dishonest person. You can have the last word, because you refuse to answer the question.
“Sorry, that is still not hard evidence.”
Oh, it is compelling evidence. But whether or not it or other statements are admissible is up to the tribunal. And we won’t see all the evidence that is admitted into the record until the matters actually proceed to trial. And, at that, because the cases will be tried in a military tribunal and not a federal or state court of law, I have no idea what will be made public.
“And you still find ways to avoid the question I have repeatedly asked you multiple times now.”
Uh, what question would that be, Sparky?
Present it here, kid; in response to this post, so I can be sure just what you are talking about.
I’ll respond tomorrow. I have to check on my wife, who is an invalid. I do that every night, kid; which seems to vex some of you FReepers.
Yet again:
The question is how can you square that Biden is serous about saving the border integrity of Ukraine, while he not only permits the unfettered invasion of the US borders he actually encourages the invasion with his policies which are in direct opposition of the rules established by Congress for applying for asylum?
As you can see, I am not asking for you to provide Biden's intent. It's a straight forward question. I'm asking for you to provide you educated opinion about the diametrically opposed tactics he is taking for two separate invasions. You already alluded that you believe he is allowing the invasion of our nation on purpose.
Just for the heck of it, some of my thoughts as to why I I do not support either side in this conflict.
In many aspects, Biden has a lot in common with Putin. I trust neither of them. They may actually be working in concert with each other, because Zelenskyy is no Churchill, no matter how they try to portray him as being such. In reality, he is in kindred company with Biden & Putin in my opinion. He is as untrustworthy as both Putin & Biden.
See, what I am really after is understanding you, and why you support sending money to Ukraine in support of corrupt creeps all around who are involved in this conflict that Ukraine brought upon themselves. Our involvement in Ukraine in the runup, was not one of pristine innocence either. The outcome is playing out pretty much as I imagined, however, it proves that Russia most certainly does not possess the power that the USSR did. China should be our main concern. Sadly we drove Russia into the arms of China, not a wise geopolitical move at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.