Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Boots

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24  Next >
41
Flat Earth Community / Re: A quick poll
« on: January 03, 2020, 01:23:32 AM »
Yep. Evidence can exist that supports a hypothesis. But said evidence neither accepts nor rejects, the individual interpreting the evidence does that.

What is the opposite of evidence supporting a hypothesis? Since we are arguing semantics here. If your hypothesis is that John Smith is the murderer and you find some evidence: DNA on the murder weapon.


When DNA evidence on the murder weapon matches John Smith you would say

The evidence supports the theory that John Smith is the murderer.

What would you say when DNA evidence on the murder weapon does not belong to John Smith? Since you are arguing semantics about the word "reject"

The evidence ____________ the theory that John Smith is the murderer.


Conflicts with? opposes?
Individual: Accepts/Rejects
Evidence: Supports/Does not support

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 03, 2020, 01:19:01 AM »
I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing...
Why?

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

He has a false equivalency, which he tries to pass off as evidence.

Par for the freaking course...and freaking hilarious.

One only need look up the word, "contempt," in a thesaurus...one will not find the word "obstruct," listed as a synonym.

Please stop it, breadcrumb...you want to go in and edit a Wikipedia to submit as evidence...

There is a charge called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, but that does NOT APPLY HERE, as the US House of Representatives has no authority under the US Constitution to administer JUSTICE!

The bogus 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress was entitled that way simply because of polling data gathered by the Democrats from their idiotic base.
I think you may have misunderstood my statement.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 03, 2020, 01:17:38 AM »
I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

They aren't. Warned.
Warning taken. Unsure how you are so sure they aren't true though.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 02, 2020, 10:22:50 AM »
You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.
From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Congress is not a thing, and unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not illegal and certainly not impeachable.

My facts are not wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law that says that these must be settle by the courts before they could be declared obstruction. 

Trump's defense for defying those subpoenas is that he has the power to declare absolute immunity from investigations. That's not a thing.  Judges are aware that's not a thing.  But since he's the president they have to seriously consider it every time he tries it.  Our judicial system is painfully slow.  Trump is aware of this.  These lawsuits aren't meant to win.  They're meant to extend it out longer than a session of congress. 

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?
Obstruction of Congress can be declared but nevertheless, no crime has been committed.

I have no idea what should happen in your convoluted God-Emperor scenario but I suspect the legal process should be followed.

Either way, refusing to testify until subpoenaed is most definitely a thing. And unless and until legal subpoenas have been served and defied, no crime has been committed.The slowness of the courts, and the fact that some suspect Trump of using this slowness to his advantage does not justify throwing out due process. Especially in something as important as impeachment.

The fact that you think it does is amazing to me. I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM »
You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.
From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not criminal and certainly not impeachable.

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing, although your source was last edited yesterday. Other than that, my facts are not wrong.

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM »


It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.
Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Yeah, refreshing is the right word.  I had the impeachment hearings on in the background while I was working.  I don't know if you managed to catch them or not.  The defense the republicans put up made no sense.  It was a lot of yelling and table pounding.  Some catch phrases involving a clock and a calendar.  A lot of complaining about process.  Not a whole lot of substance from that side of the aisle.

That channel you linked to had more substance than what the republicans have put out so far.  So yeah, refreshing.  This video for example,
attempts to make a few interesting arguments.  Like arguing that Trump doesn't have to submit to oversight if he suspects that it's just a witch hunt and therefore obstruction of congress isn't an impeachable offense.  It is an argument that makes no sense since congress has broad powers of oversight to check the executive's broad authority in most matters.  But still it's better going on about clocks and calendars.

As far as the impeachable offenses they're actually well defined.  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf
You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 02, 2020, 03:10:32 AM »


It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.
Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM »

49
Flat Earth Community / Re: A quick poll
« on: January 01, 2020, 01:25:32 AM »
Evidence doesn't accept or reject it just is.

I disagree with this. If you have a theory that John Smith is the murderer and you find DNA on the murder weapon that belongs to John Smith then the evidence supports the theory that John Smith is the murderer.  The evidence can both exist and support a theory.
Yep. Evidence can exist that supports a hypothesis. But said evidence neither accepts nor rejects, the individual interpreting the evidence does that.

50
The default position is that it's flat. Look out your window, look out over a lake. See? Flat.

Now convince me that it's actually globular!

The default position when I look at my dog is that she isn't made of cells.
This isn't a good argument. Were you 5 micrometers tall and stood looking at the horizon on a beach ball, you might conclude it's flat too.
Hmm so it's within the realm of possibility that it's globular like a beach ball. But you haven't even come close to showing why I should actually believe that's the case.

51
Flat Earth Community / Re: A quick poll
« on: December 24, 2019, 10:04:10 AM »
Evidence doesn't accept or reject it just is.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« on: November 12, 2018, 04:03:56 PM »
A rock underwater will weigh 2/3 of what a rock on the beach weighs.

53
The default position is that it's flat. Look out your window, look out over a lake. See? Flat.

Now convince me that it's actually globular!

54
Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again
« on: November 07, 2018, 01:41:49 PM »
Dude! It's free publicity for the site!

What are you complaining about? The fact that they categorized us as deniers? That's awful 'cause before they did that everyone thought FET was totally legit.

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 09:42:36 PM »
.

NPC 1: But it was actually Democrats who were fighting and sacrificing even though they were called Republicans.  (Four legs good two legs better! I read it in my NPC history book!)
the man clearly said conservative and meant Republicans but Republicans of that era were liberals
QED

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 06:44:41 PM »
Don Lemon: We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men! Hmm ???
 
Navy Seal: I represent just one of the hundreds of thousands of white men who fought long and hard and sacrificed their lives for the freedoms and the equality we all enjoy.

NPC 1: But it was actually Democrats who were fighting and sacrificing even though they were called Republicans.  (Four legs good two legs better! I read it in my NPC history book!)

NPC 2: Technically Don Lemon wasn't criticizing white men

(In other news)

SNL: Ha ha ha! Look at that pirate looking guy. Yeah Yeah ... he says he lost an eye in the war or whatever! Ha ha ha!

Me: Pathetic!

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 03:50:27 PM »
After surviving three wars, a gunshot wound, a near fatal drowning, a failed parachute, Taliban ambushes, ISIS snipers, mortars, mine-fields, suicide bombers and laying down my life for the cause of freedom while fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with my brother Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, and Atheists, I have now returned home to the USA where a CNN host has labeled me as a radicalized right wing terrorist simply because of my gender and the color of my skin.

That's literally not what Don Lemon said.
I represent just one of the hundreds of thousands of conservative white men who have fought to preserve freedom in this great Nation and in other nations. My forefathers are the 3% who founded this Republic against the might of the British Army. It was white Conservative men who died by the tens of thousands after charging into our southern states to free our black brothers from the slavery.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 03:15:29 PM »
After surviving three wars, a gunshot wound, a near fatal drowning, a failed parachute, Taliban ambushes, ISIS snipers, mortars, mine-fields, suicide bombers and laying down my life for the cause of freedom while fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with my brother Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, and Atheists, I have now returned home to the USA where a CNN host has labeled me as a radicalized right wing terrorist simply because of my gender and the color of my skin.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 06:41:00 AM »
Wow, that navy seal sure was upset.  I guess now he knows what being (or looking) middle Eastern feels like.


Also, ignoring the entire first half of the argument Don made is a shitty thing to do.


Finally: we all know the Republican party has swapped platforms in the last 100 or so years.
Wow. NPC alert!

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.
« on: November 05, 2018, 06:09:15 AM »
Former US Navy SEAL, Ephraim Mattos, has responded to comments made this week by Don Lemon on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time.

“We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.” — Don Lemon on CNN (October 29, 2018)

Here is Mattos’ response:

After surviving three wars, a gunshot wound, a near fatal drowning, a failed parachute, Taliban ambushes, ISIS snipers, mortars, mine-fields, suicide bombers and laying down my life for the cause of freedom while fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with my brother Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, and Atheists, I have now returned home to the USA where a CNN host has labeled me as a radicalized right wing terrorist simply because of my gender and the color of my skin.

I represent just one of the hundreds of thousands of conservative white men who have fought to preserve freedom in this great Nation and in other nations. My forefathers are the 3% who founded this Republic against the might of the British Army. It was white Conservative men who died by the tens of thousands after charging into our southern states to free our black brothers from the slavery imposed on them by the Liberal left. We were the ones who acknowledged that women have a right to vote. We held the line in WWI and charged the beaches of Normandy in WWII. We have fought for freedom and liberty for generations and we continue to do so today alongside all of our brothers and sisters regardless of their race or religion.

In the early 1930s, Hitler said the same thing about the Jews that Don Lemon of CNN just said about white men. This is the true face of the Democratic Party. First they enslaved and killed blacks, and now they use them to spew hatred and lies against the very people who have fought for generations to free them and uplift them.

Remember that when you go to vote.

One final thought: To make a point, I have referred to myself as a “white male” in the previous sentences multiple times, but I must make it clear that I identify as simply “American,” not as “white” or “male” or “Republican.”

Although blatantly racist and hateful, do not let Don Lemon’s ignorant words drive you into viewing yourself only by your race and religion. Identity politics does not lead to freedom. It only leads to hatred and division and an “us vs. them” mentality.

If CNN does not fire Don Lemon immediately, it only goes to show that they are truly the “enemy of the people.”

—    Ephraim Mattos, Former US Navy SEAL

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24  Next >