[Lord Dave]

My point is cons are rackets and the things I listed are certainly "rackets." Therefore, they are cons.

Cons are Rackets but not all Rackets are cons.

[Action80]

War is certainly a con, human trafficking is certainly a con, and the Burisma deal was certainly a con.

You are free to disagree, but any non-biased reader clearly understands I am correct in my analysis.

Any non-biased reader clearly understands Joe Biden to be a demented old pedo, who thankfully, is close to the end of his criminal career and, hopefully, life.

[Lord Dave]

War is certainly a con, human trafficking is certainly a con, and the Burisma deal was certainly a con.

You are free to disagree, but any non-biased reader clearly understands I am correct in my analysis.

Any non-biased reader clearly understands Joe Biden to be a demented old pedo, who thankfully, is close to the end of his criminal career and, hopefully, life.

You are biased.  Thus your writing is biased.
Also, find me a non-biased person. Let's test your theory.

[Action80]

Describe a racket that does not involve some sort of conniving approach.

Then, I will cede the point.

[Lord Dave]

Describe a racket that does not involve some sort of conniving approach.

Then, I will cede the point.

Protection.

"I provide you with security for money.  If you do not pay, I will destroy your stuff."
See?  No con.  Honest.  Truthful.  Straightforward.

[Action80]

Q - How do persons running a protection racket evade prosecution and detection from law enforcement?

A - CONniving to do so.

Please try again.

[Lord Dave]

Q - How do persons running a protection racket evade prosecution and detection from law enforcement?

A - CONniving to do so.

Please try again.

Con stands for confidence, dipshit, not conniving.  As in you gain someone's CONfidence to exploit them.

Conniving is just another word for conspiracy.

[Action80]

^no skills with syntax

Very sad.

Or, deliberately lying.

Even more sad.

PS: fuck off.

[Lord Dave]

Autocorrect fail.

But fine. 
Define con artist.

[Action80]

Sorry, I am correct, you are wrong.

I won't waste my time with entities such as you anymore.

I choose to grow out of the practice of wasting my time with the ilk who are labeling forum participants as "dipshits," when they have lost an argument.

FE WINS!!!

[Lord Dave]

Sorry, I am correct, you are wrong.

I won't waste my time with entities such as you anymore.

I choose to grow out of the practice of wasting my time with the ilk who are labeling forum participants as "dipshits," when they have lost an argument.

FE WINS!!!

And yet you have provided no evidence to prove it.  Your entire argument seems to be that con means conniving.  Which is wrong in the context of  a racket.

[Action80]

Choose one of the following:

A - In order to conduct a racket (in the context of a criminal operation), it requires the confidence of all parties affected by its operation.

B - In order to conduct a racket (in the context of a criminal operation), it requires the act of conniving amongst the operators of the racket.

CASE CLOSED!

Now please, just go sit in the corner somewhere and leave the actual humans alone.

[Lord Dave]

Choose one of the following:

A - In order to conduct a racket (in the context of a criminal operation), it requires the confidence of all parties affected by its operation.

B - In order to conduct a racket (in the context of a criminal operation), it requires the act of conniving amongst the operators of the racket.

CASE CLOSED!

Now please, just go sit in the corner somewhere and leave the actual humans alone.

My God...
You don't even know what we're arguing about!
Of course a racket is full of conniving people!
But A CON is not A CONNIVING!

Do you even know what A Con is?

[Action80]

There is no argument with your non-sequitur point.

The rackets I listed are cons foisted upon the public and committed by criminals within all levels of government.

Now, as I wrote earlier, go sit in the corner and leave the humans in peace.

[Lord Dave]

There is no argument with your non-sequitur point.

The rackets I listed are cons foisted upon the public and committed by criminals within all levels of government.

Now, as I wrote earlier, go sit in the corner and leave the humans in peace.

Define a con.

[garygreen]

no idea what this argument is about but fwiw "con" means "confidence" in the context of a scam. i.e., confidence man, or confidence trick.

[Lord Dave]

no idea what this argument is about but fwiw "con" means "confidence" in the context of a scam. i.e., confidence man, or confidence trick.

Action there thinks it means conniving.
And thus, by definition, is a racket.  And anything with conniving people is a racket.  Like all wars.

[Action80]

As if confidence men are not conniving.

Jesus...wtf is wrong with the bots here lately?

The bot from Norway thinks he has a point in regard to the war in Ukrain not being some sort of con.

War is a racket and war is a con.

End of story.
 

[Action80]

“I believe in the rule of law..." says Uncle Hairy Legs.

What a fucking joke.

[honk]

Ideally he wouldn't have to do something like this, but Trump would have very likely abused his office to pursue revenge against the people who investigated him instead. It's also very likely he'd have targeted Fauci to pander to the conspiracy nuts who still think that covid was a false flag and the vaccine was a time bomb or whatever. Those same conspiracy nuts regularly ignore the fact that Trump took credit for the vaccine and encouraged people to take it, but as I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.