Total posts: 3,763
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You can also make opponent look insane, delusional, weak, coward, incapable...ect.
Is it lost on you that such still mounts to personal attack, and personal attack is a lost argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
udaism is still a religion followed by the Jews competing with Christianity. Jesus betrayed the Jews even though he was a Jew and followed Judaism.
Nope. the pre-mortal Jesus was Yahweh, or Jehovah. He is the God of Israel, whom they worshiped. unknowing and unaccepting that he was born to Mary, of God the Father's sireship, and was and will be the Messiah. Jews, and everyone else will come to accept this as fact, even though it is rejected now by many. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Redeemer of all mankind. All. He is the Prince of Peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The Messiah of Judaic prophecy was to be completely human, born of two human parents,
Not one of your several O.T. verses cited imply a "completely human, born of two human parents." I presume you mean human mortal parents. God is immortal, but he is of no other animal type than human. So, your description is conflicted. God the Father is the literal father of Jesus Christ; Mary, a mortal human daughter of David by several generations is his mother. Joseph, a cousin of Mary, served the role of mortal "father" to Jesus, though contributed not to the genome of Jesus Christ. The blood of Joseph is not in the Christ; not one drop. He is of God's bloodline, being the literal son of the Father, the Holy One of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer, as testified by Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel.
it was the Romans that killed Jesus,
Romans, only because Israel, then, was under Roman rule, and were forbidden by Rome to put anyone to death.That the elders of Israel sought the life of Christ is unquestionable. I will not bash biblical scripture with you. Bo9th O.T prophecy and N.T references abound that the Pharisees sought Christ's death for blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God.
so he can’t be considered their “rightful king”
I did not say Jesus was King by messianic prophecy. I said he was king because had Rome not ruled over Judea, but Judea had been of their own rule, even through Mary's bloodline, Jesus would have been the rightful King of Judea. It just so happened that Joseph, as well, was of that bloodline. That's the historic bloodline of it all, my friend, accept it, or don't.
He did not fulfill the central theme of Judaic Messianic prophecy,
I did not say he was, then, at the Meridian of time. But he will fulfill that prophecy when he returns. He will be recognized as King of Israel, and of the world. That's a future event, not past. I never said that is Judaic pro[hecy, although it is. They just misunderstand it. Thy will come to accept it in time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
perhaps you have special knowledge of what's being argued in OP
Don't know how special it is, but I have written extensively on misinterpretation of constitutional text [one non-fiction volume which bears my username as title, now in it's second edition, and another I am currently editing for publication later this year, and a third in development. I interpret the Constitution in the context of its 18th century syntax [up through the 10A], which is a little different than it would be interpreted today [languagfe changes over centuries of use, according to the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. The Constitution needs to be understood in that light, not as we would interpret it today. About 10% of all Supreme Court cases have been overturned by subsequent Courts, and I know judges of all stripes are loathe to make precedent, but Congress is slow on the uptake to make changes to law as interpreted by the Court. They spend far too much time playing at being DOJ, which is not their calling. "Investigation" is not a word granted to them constitutionally, and the Court in Watkins v. US [1957] told them they should be about investigation only for legislative purpose, period. Nancy P}Pelosi's two attempte4d convictions of Trump by impeachment did not even follow her own House Rules to produce those two indictments. Shameful conduct by her and her keystone cops. No wonder both failed in the Senate. I'm not a supporter of Trump, but Biden was and has always been a joke, and Harris worse. The Democrats need someone to pick up the pieces in a hurry, because winter is coming...
No, I do not believe Trump is breaking the law on anything. but his rhetoric leaves a bit to be desired, and he certainly is no moral advisor - not that I believe any president should be. That's not the calling. Being the US CEO is. Article VI: no religious test...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
making other person sound stupid or evil.
What a narrow approach. My debate technique is not personal attack, which is exact;y what you suggest ['stupid" or "evil."] What have those conditions to do with an opponent's arguments and rebuttals? Nothing. Personal attack is the last losing argument because that attacker has no valid argument left to them. I attack an opponent's argument, to demonstrate its flaws while offering my position with referenced scholastic support of my position, and may the best argument win the day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Over the course of five decades, Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, non-payment of employees, and the defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers, and charities.
And? So what; none of it scores as constitutional qualification failures to a presidential candidate, does it?
Also filed 6 bankruptcies.
Not a single one of those bankruptcies were personal bankruptcies; they were Trump Org-filed bankruptcies for failure to produce a profit. The man and the company are completely separate entities, since the 1880s according to US law. Don't what blend them.
Trump paid 88.5 million to E.Jean Carroll for raping and defaming her.
Nope. That was a civil trial. Rape is a criminal trial. Do not blend them; there is no guilt in a civil trial, only liability [a fine]. Need to brush up on what is and is not law in these United States, because currently, you're clueless.
Trump was charged with paying hush money to....
More misinterpretation of law. Paying hush money is not a crime, my friend. Try again. See directly above.
Trump's false or misleading claims total 30573 over 4 years .
4years = 1,461 days. 30,573 "lies" = 20.9 lies per day. According to Psychology Today, we, in the US, average 20 lies per day. Trump is at 21 [rounded], barely above normal. So what? How have you been personally affected by any of them?
You need to settle down stop screaming at the sky, and give the man his due. He won the election, both by electoral college, and by popular vote. Get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I already recognize that Jesus does not have any sireship by Joseph, but that is not my point. My point is that Jesus was not just King of the Jews by virtue if his being the Messiah, but by actual Judah-Davidic lineage, as I said. Please read my entire commentary of post #81. It is pure irony that the First-century first-decades Jews really did kill their rightful king, even by virtue of Mary's bloodline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
My #1 post outlined a very real condition by example of debate #5735, in which Pro offered a challenge with a Resolution, which was accepted by Con, but R1 did not have an argument for the Resolution, by Pro, and Con forfeited. The rest of the debate was a total forfeit by Con, but Pro never offered a single argument for the Resolution, effectively winning the debate according to votes [not yet concluded, but that will be the result], simply by Con's forfeit. But the win should not be recognized, because Pro did not enter a single argument. Every reply comment on this string is off-topic. This is an argument to halt all such debate results, and there have been several I've observed like this: cheap wins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
debate is to make other person look stupid or evil.
Nope; you ignore the nfree exchange of ideas by a formalized process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
...marginalize all Ideas but your own.
Since you do not engage in debate on this site, you marginalize yourself from it. No, that is not what debate does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why do you keep insisting on being hung-up by truth? it its not a necessary function of debate. I tire of this exchange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I Actually have not admitted that Trump was anything...
The way this discussion is going, I perceive the original question, "Is Donald Trump breaking the law?" has yet to even be addressed, being lost in the weeds with what amounts to a discussion of what is law. We have encumbered the definition by Court precedent, congressional meandering [doing just abut anything but their primary responsibility to "make law"] and the legit presidential reach of "EOs." So, I ask, "Is Donald Trump breaking [what] law?" because many who oppose his very existence are arguing whatever is the law, he's breaking it. There are alternative answers, but wokeness, which is dead, now, is still attempting signs of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't be absurd. I'm saying voters. currently, are unable to render a decision of failure of a debate participant to meet a minimum effort to argue their Resolution BoP. No one should earn points for that failure, even by rendering a tie vote, which does apply debate points, but in a losing effort. I oppose the award of any pants for complete failure to meet BoP, such as in both participants forfeiture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Isn't the option to vote on a tie, good enough?
No, because it awards point[s] to a lost effort where conditions of the debate are so poor, neither participant makes an effort to argue their BoP, but merely to pad stats in a losing effort that is not currently allowed to voters to render. Why should anyone score any points when their effort does not achieve the objective of Resolution BoP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And your claim that debating art voting policy makes sure voters tell the truth?
Did I say that? No:
#3. No, the object of debate is not to “say whatever you want,” but to argue with scholastic support (source references) for or against the resolution, true, or not.
Whereas you said
#4: Thats irrelevant to truth and based on a false premise that if someone is debater or mod, that he tells the truth.
You, Best.Korea, are the one hung up on truth. DebateArt is not in existence for debates to argue "truth;" they're to argue the merits of a Resolution, which, itself, may be true, or false. Whoever offers the better argument in that regard is the winner by voters, and not by whether the Resolution is the truth, or not. So, to clarify, I do not insist that truth is a relevant factor in the judgment of opponents winning or losing a debate by voters, but whether the relative BoP's by the opponents are met, or not.
If my BoP in a debate is to demonstrate that God is a screaming blue spaghetti monster [I do not believe that] and I am able to convince voters by my arguments that he is [true or not], then I have met my BoP, and I win the debate.
But that has naught to do with the purpose of my #1 post. Try to stay on point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats irrelevant to truth and based on a false premise that if someone is debater or mod, that he tells the truth.
Why DebateArt.com?
Many websites exist for online disagreements. However, they are almost exclusively open forum based, without any method of quality control. They are often reduced to distorted echo chambers perfect for ideologues, and suboptimal for anyone hoping to learn or otherwise grow as a person.
DebateArt.com offers the unique value proposition of a safe environment for competitive one-vs-one text debates, wherein participants own up to the intellectual quality they are capable of presenting. The results of this are then judged by the community to determine a winner, using standards which mitigate partiality (see: Voting Policy). [Help Center/Debates/Wht DebatARt.com]
It is if you want it to be. Objectives are determined by mind.
See directly above.
Not everyone believes whatever sources tell him.
Develop a debate strategy in support or opposing the Resolution and fond sources that support your strategy. This site has only partial entertain,ment value.
This is irrelevant to what I said.
Yes, it might be since what you said is irrelevant to the point of debate.
This is irrelevant to what I said.
Snob.
This is not a refutation to anything I said.
See directly above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Funny thing: Hillarious Balloon Girl wore two different orange pant suits during the 2016 campaign. No one (but me, apparently), made note of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That AI depends on Google at all is evidence of its flaws
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hailing Satan is one of the greatest lies in existence; he being the father of lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Jesus is of the House of Judah, and, further, both Joseph and Mary, also Jews, were of the direct lineage of Judah to David, and, had Judaea been an autonomous kingdom as under David, Joseph would have been the king, as Jesus would have succeeded him, being, legitimately by blood of both Joseph and Mary, King of the Jews. That the Jews did not recognize that by their ignorance of the genealogy, were under further condemnation of God above and beyond rejecting his gospel and messiaship. Source: James E. Talmage, “Jesus the Christ”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Boy, have you been hooked, line and sinker. Satan couldn’t care less about our dreams and wishes, though he will dangle them before our eyes. Satan’s magic (and that’s all it is) is in telling us the truth more than lies, but the hook is the magic dazzling our eyes that he tells only the truth. His kingdom is a rabble of liars and thieves, robbing us of virtue and supreme accomplishment which never happens by accident.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You ignore that voters are, typically, debaters, themselves, including mods, with as many versions of “the truth” as there are opinions in that regard. No, the object of debate is not to “say whatever you want,” but to argue with scholastic support (source references) for or against the resolution, true, or not. We cannot assume the resolution is true, but that is the instigator’s BoP, for or against.
The winner of the debate is the participant who acquires the most points directly from voters; your peers on this site. You may personally disagree with voters’ determination of a win, or loss, and that can be appealed, but the mod[s] decision is final.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, again. A dress/skirt is the worst garment a man can wear. Anatomy, my friend, and anatomical viability was not a consideration even just hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands. Male testicles survive with greater viability when supported than when hanging loose, particularly when physically active. You don’t need a medical degree, but a modicum of research is helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Clothes don’t even have gender
Nope. Example: bust darts to accommodate female breasts without stretch or gaps in upper-body garment design. Example: right or left accommodation of a greater allowance of fabric in trousers to accommodate which testicle hangs lower (for mot men, they “dress left” since that testicle usually hangs low.) Get it? If you’ve never worn tailored clothes, you may not have a clue to what I’m talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
I have reviewed a number of “debates” in which the instigator issues a subject challenge, then proceeds with a fluff R1 that makes no effort to argue any point in support of, or against the Resolution, and then the opponent either forfeits the round, or makes an equally off-topic statement that neither argues for or against the Resolution.
The debate proceeds through the argument rounds as in R1: nothing for or against the Resolution through the last round.
Voters are not given an option to offer a no-win vote; I.e., both opponents lose. As it is, because one or the other opponent is awarded even 1 point, that participant effectively wins the debate without actually offering a single argument for or against the Resolution. I believe this is a cheap win. I favor voters being given a no-win option to voting because this condition as described above ought to be classed a dual forfeit. Example: debate #5735.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, I write books (historic fiction, non-fiction, illustrated short stories, adult short stories (non-porn), and do all my own internal color or b&w illustrations. I’m an indie who voted for Trump, but do not have swastikas in my design unless that is a primary relevant subject. It never has been. Only the disease of wokeness assumes it is a Trump icon, but woke is dead.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
#23
Yes, agreed. In this particular case, already knowing the company mentioned in my #20 never performed failure analysis even after teaching the process to them, and observing their resistance, I fired them on the spot.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Worded as could happen, or not, sounds like we individually have naught to do with free will to make it happen. I believe in free will of each individual. I don’t buy universal dominance in any way. That other forces may oppose us is certain, but I believe in the ultimate dominion of the individual to chart his course and determine his present and future.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Survival, reproduction, power, wish, change… are six laws.
I count five, only, and all have flaws as defined.
Survival merely to maintain sameness rejects the advantage of continuous improvement.
Reproduction merely to produce sameness ignores the above advantage of generational continuous improvement.
Power to achieve only one’s own wishes limits one’s scope of power to achieve mutual improvement and greater access to individual productivity and innovation.
Wishes are fishes. Seek to excel that righteousness may abound.
Change is, in a positive sense, personal and social improvement with purpose.
The sixth is perfection; achieved as a process of improvement in all the other five, not a destination.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I am not convinced China has home-grown AI superiority in either cost or reliability. They do not account for their in-process failures. They are piled in a closed room no one sees, except I personally made it a factor to continue their status as a supplier to the company I worked for that developed the first 3.5” hard disk drive to allow the first production of laptop computers. They were fired. I’ve seen nothing since out of China to convince me they’ve changed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Frankly, I wouldn’t pay you a dime for your suggestions. You ignore the benefit of local and state governments having a greater role in our lives than feds. Yes, there are effectIve fed gov matters, but education and healthcare are better served by local gov’t. The poor will become slaves of gov’t by a $20k annual stipend. Teach them self-sufficiency and how to achieve it. Teach them the value of work. As the ancient Chinese once taught (they don’t anymore) give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for life. Don’t saddle him with the idea that he should have a limited amount of money. Let his personal ambition soar. Not living here, you have no knowledge of the generosity wealth allows the wealthy. Take their money from them, they can no longer be generous. One-percenters (a couple of thousand of us) already pay over 45% of tax revenue. Considering their largesse, for their numbers, that’s already “a fair share” to quote Biden. He was as dumb as they come. Socialism has a major problem: it has no clue how to create wealth. It only knows spending, and when money runs out, socialism collapses.
You want robot factories? Fine, let robots do your direct labor. Are they also going to buy your raw materials to make your widgets? Are they going to buy the inside facilities in which you build your production line with its necessary support facilities? Are robots going to do all your maintenance? Are they going to market and sell, deliver and warrant your widgets’ reliability? And what do yo do when a competitor develops a better widget with greater reliability and more features?
These are all concerns Karl Marx never learned, industrial genius he is alleged to be…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That does not say Trump has unlimited power. He doesn’t, according to the Constitution. He cannot, for example launch an amendment in Congress, nor can he approve one by signature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Trump wants Americans…
I have things I want Americans to do, too, but I lack authority to make it happen, and so does Trump. I feel no compulsion to buy his products, nor have I any reason to compel Trump to buy mine, and neither’s American dream is diminished
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How do you think Trump thinks the Constitution and the Bible must be tied together? The Constitution makes no insistence that either Christianity or Judaism must be the religious expression of Americans to be strictly constitutional. In fact, religion wise, the Constitution is strictly non-commit Al. And there is the no religious test routine in Article VI clause 3 to dismiss in order to make it agree with your contention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How do you think Trump thinks the Constitution and the Bible must be tied together? The Constitution makes no insistence that either Christianity or Judaism must be the religious expression of Americans to be strictly constitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
But so is bitcoin.
Just as I said; there's more to investment than the NYSE. But bitcoin, at present, seems too volatile and searching for an identity.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
what do you expect me to cite statutes, the constitution, regulations, and case law?
I do, because I've lived a life of research, even back when that could only be done in libraries, because I did not have the advantage of the Internet you and I have today. So, yes, I expect it. By such availability , caring to avoid being sucked in by "social" media, which is mostly bullshyte, you make the time to be thorough. So, you claim:
Most of Trumps executive orders r illegal.
in your post #30. Well, I've asked you to stop gishing [claiming personal opinion as fact] and demonstrate a supporting source reference, and you reply by accusing me of gishing. I've merely asked a question. What have I claimed by the question that is not a legitimate inquiry? If you can provide a legitimate source supporting your claim that "most of Trump's executive orders are "illegal," i.e., more than 50% of them, I'm satisfied. If not, I'm not. But don't make personal claims you're not willing to back-up with evidence. I know something about courts of law, being a student of that enterprise for the better part of 50 years. I've been around the sun 75 times. boyo, and I am hooked on gaining knowledge, and I didn't quit at the end of my "formal education" over 50 years ago, completing another baccalaureate just last fall in linguistics. Just for the hell of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
why don't they buy it when it sinks
Now that a few days have passed - I waited on purpose - from you sour attitude, I will advise that NYSE isn't the only game in town, even though it closed Friday still up from Trump's election. But, even if it crashes, that's just dollars, which are, ever since Nixon took us off the gold standard [I was around, then], and not being able to sustain an export high since WW2, [I've almost been around since then] and it is not doing well against my gold investments, which are up in value by a worth of $2800 / oz. since I started buying the stuff at $400 / oz., fifty years ago, and now own over 100 lbs of the inflation-proof glitter. Not just paper shares; the heavy glitter itself. Can't say that for the dollar in my pocket right now, can I? - although, it appears like my small NYSE portfolio [mostly Apple and Amazon, purchased when both started a few circuits around the sun ago, are doing well, too. And if they crash... pffttt.
However, have to ask, if you're so upset about it, it isn 't "why don't they buy it when it sinks?" It's why don't you? Are you your own nemesis? [Yes]
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Technically the supreme court could reverse course and give the president more power.
Nope. SCOTUS does not have that paper to take, nor give autonomously. The three branches share their power only insofar as the Constitution allows each there autonomous and shared power, and SCOTUS can do nothing without a case before them to act upon.
its pretty clear they [SCOTUS] won't let him nullify the department of education.
That's a murky statement. SCOTUS has no authority to tell the president, the XO of the Executive Branch, what offices within the Executive [the Cabinet, in this case] are legitimately executive offices.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Shila
A total of 55 countries in Africa, Americas, Asia, Middle East and Oceana do not recognize Gaza [Palestine] as a self-governed State. Greenland, while "self-governed" is a member state of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Gulf is a body of water, not a landmass. And while the Gulf is referenced to Mexico, it did not become an independent nation, separated from Spain, until 1821, after the sovereignty of the U.S. was already established. Although Mexico actually has 60 miles more of coastline of the Gulf than does the US, we produce much more from it than does Mexico. I'd say considering all, the US can lay claim to it with more legitimacy than Mexico.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Most of Trumps executive orders r illegal.
That amounts to gish gallop: making personal opinion claims with no support by factual citation. Demonstrate the illegality. That's all. I am challenge your credibility. You personal opinion response is just ore galloping.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
"Trump is changing how Americans accept God by tying the Bible to the US constitution which he can easily change. "
I don't think Trump cares a whit about changing how Americans accept God. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion as much as for it, and he knows that. But Trump cannot "easily change the Constitution" and he knows that, too. Presidents are not authorizes any official action with regard to amending the Constitution. He can suggest, but that's as far as it goes, and he knows that, too. You may be referencing the out-of-context citation of Trump's alleged aim to "eliminate theConstitution" as he was charged from a lengthy statement he made, interpreted by a very incompetent press, and many people who do not know how to analyze a sentence by subject/verb/object/preposition, etc, and to recognize a conditional phrase when they see it. Our education system has degraded sufficient over the last 50-70 years since I was in grade school, learning to diagram a sentence in English by proper grammar, turning out illiterates in their native tongue. That entire Trump explanation was not an effort to eliminate the Constitution, but was a conditional statement of what would eliminate it: by simple misinterpretation and acting on those misinterpretations. I'm currently editing a n on-fiction I've writer claiming the Constitution can be viewed as holy writ along side, but not replacing the Bible. I truly believe it was inspired, but I don't accept any holy writ being infallible, not the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, or any inspired document that is written by man, who is fallible even when inspired. God did not personally write any of it.
Created:
Posted in:
The first paragraphs, chapter 1, of a new historic fiction novel currently being written by fauxlaw.
Dateline 1: New Year’s Day, 1921
"When the Ambassador Hotel opened in Los Angeles on New Year's Day, 1921, Wilshire Boulevard did not yet exist. It was a dirt road through bean and barley fields. The 24-acre site was once a dairy farm. By whatever name the dirt road was then known, prior to 1921, it did not care to be remembered.
"When the Ambassador Hotel opened in Los Angeles on New Year's Day, 1921, Wilshire Boulevard did not yet exist. It was a dirt road through bean and barley fields. The 24-acre site was once a dairy farm. By whatever name the dirt road was then known, prior to 1921, it did not care to be remembered.
"Forgetting may be appropriate because, although the eventual hotel at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard was a grand palace, it was virtually inaccessible until this major thoroughfare of Los Angeles, from the hotel’s location 12 miles inland to the ocean at Santa Monica Beach, was fully paved. The hotel’s Coconut Grove nightclub became the hunting ground of elite Hollowood.[1] But the hotel’s demise began less than 50 years later when the kitchen pantry off the long, north side of the Embassy Ballroom became the assassination field of Robert F Kennedy [Bobby], who just won the 1968 California Democrat primary election for the presidency of the United States. He was destined to be the Democrat Party nominee, but he was dead before ever making that dateline in Chicago.
"'So…' Bobby Kennedy said, concluding a victory speech to the crowded, boisterously joyful room, his last public words, a few minutes after midnight on June 6,' … my thanks to all of you and on to Chicago and let's win there,'" he exulted, referring to the upcoming Democrat National Convention."
[1] The author calls L.A.’s Hollywood “Hollywood.” The author lived in Brentwood [West L.A.] and attended the primary victory party June 5, 1968 as a teen volunteer for Bobby Kennedy’s presidential campaign.
© 2025 by fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
But, as noted previously, the smallest number of water molecules the can be clustered together to express wetness is six molecule; much too small on an adult human scale to swim in.
Created:
Eve was created from Adam’s rib.
I much [prefer Michelangelo's version to Moses. Mickey had imagination, not just inspiration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The idea of the straight jacket is to keep you tied down.
Eh? This is now a directional issue? I thought it was to keep me tied up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Do you count the molecules in water when you are swimming?
Can't see them to count. Wouldn't I electrocute myself if I brought an electron microscope into water with me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Trump... brought us the greatest economic collapse since the great depression. Trump is one of only two Presidents in history to have fewer people working when he left office than when he went in, 2.7 million fewer people had jobs, 3 million fewer had health insurance. Fewer people working means less demand for products, so low inflation, and a trade war does not bring prices down.
Did Trump invent Covid? No. Was it Covid that caused the market crush? Yes. Trump's efforts, and others, brought the market back to higher than it was when it dumped in march of 20, in six months. Unfortunately, re-hiring did not catch-up as fast, and What'shisname took all the credit for that, with the already recovered market having more to do with it than anything What'shisname did.
Yeah, but there's the trade deficit, yeah, and the trade deficit went up 36% in Trump's first term.
According to politico.com it was more like 41.1% [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/05/2020-trade-figures-trump-failure-deficit-466116 ], but we've had a trade deficit since WWII. So?
Face it, you guys don't have facts,
Who is "you guys?" I'm one person, and an Indie, so is "you guys" you and your wish balloon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Repetition with expectation of different results is a sign of some such, but I'm bouncing off rubber walls in my straight jacket trying to remember what it is.
Created: