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 - Twerp

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
1
Flat Earth General / An Actual Flat Earth Question
« on: May 19, 2022, 08:53:00 PM »
I realize that this "flat earth site" has mostly evolved into a very conformist platform mainly used by people who believe, support and push whatever the mainstream views happen to be at any given time.

If there are any actual flat earthers left, here is a question for you to consider and hopefully respond to:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Swa6uyc2hiw

Here is a question to go along with the video:

I have a lot of other questions I didn't voice in there but to me the geometry of a plate and the flat earth theory this ☝🏼 happening is absolutely impossible

Edit: Perhaps I should have posted this in Q & A. Apologies. Feel free to move it there if you feel that's wherre it belongs.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: May 24, 2020, 09:53:12 PM »
Lol. Have you heard Dumb and Dumber 3 is coming? November 2020!

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: May 24, 2020, 12:28:11 PM »
"You're a lying dog faced pony soldier."

 lol this generator is a real hoot! Comes up with some really crazy ones!  8) 8) 8)

4
So she was referencing a literal glass ceiling above her.

That explains it.

This kinda makes sense
Laughing, because now you acknowledge this. It's only been suggested in just about every prior post.

5
Vegetarians should be free to kill plants and eat them. Non vegetarians should be free to eat meat. Peer Ederer can pound sand. I'm not tryna tell him what he can eat!

6
You are yet to demonstrate how my poll is unbiased in any way.
Why would he want to do that? His claim is precisely the opposite.

7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: February 04, 2020, 05:40:58 AM »
I hope so too.
Private companies have an incentive to decrease costs so that they can get other industries to space and other planetary bodies. If SpaceX pulls this off, then they may find more people willing to pay to go to the moon and create actual space based tourist industry. NASA will never do this.

Imagine Tiger playing golf on the moon
Exactly

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: February 03, 2020, 10:39:38 PM »
Great, while we are talking about Mars. Who thinks SpaceX will land people there before NASA, now that Artemis could be delayed until 2028. Starship could be orbital this year already.
I hope so!

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The essence of the facts
« on: February 03, 2020, 10:26:57 PM »
Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately the results are inconclusive.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: February 03, 2020, 09:07:48 PM »
Thnx.

Biden's last! lol Isn't he the chosen one? Or is it Warren?

Edit: Obviously I didn't mean last of all candidates. I meant last of all front runners.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: February 03, 2020, 08:22:00 PM »
I couldn't find any news on results from Iowa. So I went to CNN to see if they knew.  :-[ :-[ :-[ It wasn't even worth it, they didn't know either.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 30, 2020, 06:51:47 PM »
It's honestly astounding that anyone is entertaining the weak defenses coming from Trump's attorneys, to include: but obama, biden bad, no QPQ because national interest, okay so QPQ but not grounds for removal because in national interest, no technical crimes commit so you must acquit. I may have missed some good arguments in there, so forgive me.

There's also the mixed motive defense.  Where they state that if an action has multiple motivations and any one of those motivations is not corrupt then that makes the act legal.
Poorly worded but understandable given the obvious.

The argument is actually that the intent behind a president's action can be the nation's interest and simultaneously the president's interest. This does not in and of itself constitute any corruption. FYI Most president's actions and decisions are done with both these interests in mind.
That sounds like the sort of thing a king would say: what's good for the king is good for the country.  Too bad that Trump isn't a king.

FYI Most president's actions and decisions are done with both these interests in mind.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 30, 2020, 06:49:50 PM »
It's honestly astounding that anyone is entertaining the weak defenses coming from Trump's attorneys, to include: but obama, biden bad, no QPQ because national interest, okay so QPQ but not grounds for removal because in national interest, no technical crimes commit so you must acquit. I may have missed some good arguments in there, so forgive me.

There's also the mixed motive defense.  Where they state that if an action has multiple motivations and any one of those motivations is not corrupt then that makes the act legal.
Poorly worded but understandable given the obvious.

The argument is actually that the intent behind a president's action can be the nation's interest and simultaneously the president's interest. This does not in and of itself constitute any corruption. FYI Most president's actions and decisions are done with both these interests in mind.
But there is a plethora of things that show the Biden investigations are only in the president's personal interest. He didn't have the DOJ launch an investigation into Biden's actions with regards to Ukraine, he made the point man on Ukraine his personal attorney instead of a government employee, this action took place years ago and could have been investigated by the then Republican led house but wasn't, there is nothing which points to trump caring about Biden corruption until recently, there is also nothing pointing to him carrying about corruption in Ukraine except for Biden and 2016 election interference.

Not to mention you can use the exact same argument for Biden to say even if he did get the prosecutor fired to stop an investigation into his son, it's perfectly fine because it was also in America's interest to get a corrupt investigator removed. Perfectly fine and therefore no investigation into Biden would ever be called for, thus making Trumps requests investigations into Biden solely political.
There are some things that show Trump's decision to investigate the Biden's was a poor one. They do not, however show that Trump's intent was to benefit himself with no regard for the nation's best interest. Your argument about Biden may be true and if so, that would be a good reason not to impeach him. It is no argument against investigating him though. An investigation would be the way to confirm one way or the other.

FYI Most president's actions and decisions are done with both these interests in mind.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 30, 2020, 06:39:20 PM »
A stronger case would be firsthand testimony showing that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.

Such as the kind that John Bolton is literally writing a book about?  Would you support calling him as a witness in this impeachment then?


What if Trump doesn't obey a legally validated subpoenas, therefore throw the whole idea of due process out the window and just impeach him already?? Really! Stop listening to Don lime or whomever and start thinking for yourself. Really.


I am unfamiliar with who Don Lime is.

And your argument that impeaching on the grounds they've chosen is fine because Congress is authorized to do so make no sense. The same argument could be made if the senate decides to acquit. As long as they have the votes they are authorized to do so.

Correct.  Legally the house can impeach over whatever they feel is worthy of impeachment.  And legally the senate can acquit it with whatever process they feel is appropriate.

When the republicans acquit him it's rather silly to call it an illegal acquittal in the same way that calling the impeachment was illegal or unconstitutional. 

Anyway, impeachment was meant to be applied to when actual crimes were committed.




I've seen the first video.  The argument is silly and uninformed.  I can only guess that a law degree in Canada doesn't cover the US Constitution all that comprehensively. 

It may interest you to know that there's a whole set of essays called the Federalist Papers where several of our founding fathers went into great detail discussing a lot of the concepts that went into the Constitution.  One of these concepts is referred to as "high crimes and misdemeanors"  which is more or less abuse of power that constitutes a serious threat to the state.  Anyways, definitely worth a read.
Well you clearly didn't listen. I'm sure you find CNN much more palatable. The argument wasn't based on a Canadian law degree. It was based on a lengthy  discussion with a US lawyer as well as a lengthy argument regarding the history of impeachments and historically well regarded arguments made about the appropriate use of impeachment.

I doubt Bolton will testify that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country. He will likely testify that there was indeed a quid pro quo. But yes, I'm happy to have him testify.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 30, 2020, 06:25:15 PM »
It's honestly astounding that anyone is entertaining the weak defenses coming from Trump's attorneys, to include: but obama, biden bad, no QPQ because national interest, okay so QPQ but not grounds for removal because in national interest, no technical crimes commit so you must acquit. I may have missed some good arguments in there, so forgive me.

There's also the mixed motive defense.  Where they state that if an action has multiple motivations and any one of those motivations is not corrupt then that makes the act legal.
Poorly worded but understandable given the obvious.

The argument is actually that the intent behind a president's action can be the nation's interest and simultaneously the president's interest. This does not in and of itself constitute any corruption. FYI Most president's actions and decisions are done with both these interests in mind.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 29, 2020, 08:17:23 PM »

And yes, you can't charge him with Obstruction of Congress when that charge is based on him not complying with subpoenas that are not valid due to procedural errors. Again, you seem to think it's OK to throw out due process if the person being charged is a bad man and it will take too long. That's ludicrous. Even without the procedural error, not complying with subpoenas was no crime whatsoever as no court had validated the subpoenas anyway. (Now I get that you think he SHOULD have complied and maybe you're right. But THAT's not what's at issue. The issue is whether he broke the law.)

You completely missed the point regarding Sondland's testimony. The point was, he was the only one with first hand knowledge and that was his testimony. It wasn't true, I said so in my previous post. There was a quid pro quo. Quid pro quos are common. Millions of them happen every day. If quid pro quos were impeachable every president would be impeached. Trump shouldn't have said there was no quid pro quo, but that's not what they impeached him for and it's not impeachable anyway.

The book is expected to state that there was a quid pro quo which creates a problem for Trump and the Republicans because they've been trying to defend the no quid pro quo position. What the book is unlikely to do, is establish that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.

If it does establish that, perhaps Congress should have waited till it came out so they could have had something solid to base their charges on.

It seems you don't understand how the legal system works very well. It has checks and balances for very good reason. You can't just throw out the checks and balances because Trump's a bad man and impeaching him legally will take too long.

It's important to remember that this is a "trial" and not a trial.  We're not plotting to execute Trump or put him in prison.  We're just trying to figure out if we should fire a shitty temp worker.  Trump breaking the law is an overlapping but separate issue.  What the House is put out is enough to convince a reasonable person.  But now they're trying to convince senate Republicans.

Actually, never mind that.  Here's a relevant clip from the Simpsons.



Again, everyone under oath agrees on this.  No one under oath refutes this.  All the evidence submitted supports this.  There is no evidence that refutes this.  I can't imagine what a stronger case would look like to you.  Does Trump have to give a press conference confirming this? 

There's no other explanation for Trump's action here.

Why would it be necessary to wait for a subpoena to make it through the court system?  Serious question.  Is that written anywhere?  The president has a lot of power.  With the power comes the need for a lot of oversight.  The executive handing out information necessary for oversight is the rule, not the exception.

Suppose a subpoena made it all the way through the court, congress wins but Trump still refuses.  Should we wait for the sergeant at arms to arrest the subject of the subpoena before charging obstruction of congress?  If that subject goes into hiding would you argue that the process of arresting the subject of the subpoena is still playing out therefore congress can't charge obstruction?   

Quid pro quos are common, yes.  But when it's in the interest of the country or our allies.  You can't do a quid pro quo that benefits only yourself.  That kind of thing tends to land people in prison.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich
A stronger case would be firsthand testimony showing that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.

What if Trump doesn't obey a legally validated subpoenas, therefore throw the whole idea of due process out the window and just impeach him already?? Really! Stop listening to Don lime or whomever and start thinking for yourself. Really.

And your argument that impeaching on the grounds they've chosen is fine because Congress is authorized to do so make no sense. The same argument could be made if the senate decides to acquit. As long as they have the votes they are authorized to do so.

Anyway, impeachment was meant to be applied to when actual crimes were committed.



17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 29, 2020, 01:29:41 AM »
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)

To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.

Let's break this down.

Extorting Ukraine and obstructing congress falls under the definition of high crime and misdemeanor.

Everyone under oath swears that he had the intention of extorting Ukraine.  Anyone who would have spoken directly to Trump about it is blocked from testifying.  Why are they blocked from testimony?  Is it because they don't want to make Trump too innocent?  Jesus tap dancing Christ,  his former national security advisor is releasing a book with a chapter on it.  Contemplate this... no one who would exonerate Trump is being asked to testify.  Why is that?

Trump specifically said "no quid pro quo"?  Oh.  Case closed.  Because if the defended said they didn't do it then that's it.

Oh hold the phone.  Procedural errors!  Holy Shit, man.  I'm sorry.  I didn't know.  These monsters didn't accurate fill out the A0 88 authorization for a subpeona?  MADNESS!  Obviously conspiracies to defraud the public and cheat in an election pale in comparison to not having a notary public notarize the subpoenas. 

And, oh my lord.  I just found this out with some research.  I have no choice but to go full #MAGA after this atrocity.  I don't mean to upset you so please sit down before you read this.  Those monsterous house democrats failed to honor House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1).  THIS WILL NOT STAND!  I'm booking a flight to DC and I'm demanding the immediate resignation from Adam Schiff. 

This is a dark day my friends.  They say that there's two things that people will never forget.  The first being where they were on 9-11 and how they found out that the Democrats didn't follow House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)
Let's break this down for you again. Actually first, think about whether deciding to impeach, then casting about for a reason is likely to lead to reliable results.

Beating the opposition to death with a boot would also probably be considered a high crime and misdemeanor. The issue is, in order to prove that Trump "extorted Ukraine" you would have to prove that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country. The case for that is weak at best. A bunch of partisans stating under oath that they feel Trump meant to "extorted Ukraine" is not strong evidence. Also, they could have subpoenaed anyone, they just needed to go through the legal process like any other subpoena. I'm baffled why you think it's OK to throw due process out the window.

And yes, you can't charge him with Obstruction of Congress when that charge is based on him not complying with subpoenas that are not valid due to procedural errors. Again, you seem to think it's OK to throw out due process if the person being charged is a bad man and it will take too long. That's ludicrous. Even without the procedural error, not complying with subpoenas was no crime whatsoever as no court had validated the subpoenas anyway. (Now I get that you think he SHOULD have complied and maybe you're right. But THAT's not what's at issue. The issue is whether he broke the law.)

You completely missed the point regarding Sondland's testimony. The point was, he was the only one with first hand knowledge and that was his testimony. It wasn't true, I said so in my previous post. There was a quid pro quo. Quid pro quos are common. Millions of them happen every day. If quid pro quos were impeachable every president would be impeached. Trump shouldn't have said there was no quid pro quo, but that's not what they impeached him for and it's not impeachable anyway.

The book is expected to state that there was a quid pro quo which creates a problem for Trump and the Republicans because they've been trying to defend the no quid pro quo position. What the book is unlikely to do, is establish that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.

If it does establish that, perhaps Congress should have waited till it came out so they could have had something solid to base their charges on.

It seems you don't understand how the legal system works very well. It has checks and balances for very good reason. You can't just throw out the checks and balances because Trump's a bad man and impeaching him legally will take too long.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 27, 2020, 07:45:22 PM »
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)

To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 27, 2020, 06:33:54 PM »
It boils down to the case presented by Congress is a very weak case, which is why they're trying to pressure the Senate to do the work they should have done and build a stronger case.

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: January 27, 2020, 05:48:17 PM »
I have no problems understanding anything.
Really?? Like nothing?? At all?? Evar??!??

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: January 27, 2020, 12:05:19 AM »
I could do it.
Do you think we can keep Heiwa amused ;) or confused ::) (I guess he's that already) up to 500 pages :o?
All of the above. But we will never convince him of anything. He already knows it all didn't you know?  ;D ;D ;D

22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: January 26, 2020, 11:17:35 PM »
I could do it.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 26, 2020, 12:49:49 AM »
lolPossibly.  Although looking at the polls he's pretty electable.

My theory, there are professional politicians and the rank and file like us who aren't officially part of any party. We see Bernie and we think "independent caucausaing as a democrat?  Whatever.  But to the insiders it is not whatever.  They have have well have elected someone like Trump.  Bernie is not their party.

Lkay let me try this again while resistance the ambien.

The political parties are competing business.  Sometimes one side wins.  Ditto the other.  Great. somebody at least one party can conctrol.

But.  Okay, I've got a burgerking analogy.Let's say you're a customer that likes to eat at burger king.  But it's a shitty party of towna and the bloods and the cripps hang out there.  One day they decide to elected their buerger king.  The bloods and the cripps each put fourth a candidate.  But during the primary, the hambergler appears and runs a campaign based on free sausage mcmuffins for everyone.  The kids that each there and vote love egg mcmuffins.  So the hamburgler has their bote.  So the hambergler hangs out with the crips.  But he isn't a crip.  But he runs as a crip.

Okay.  look.  Clearly I'm too stoned to compoete this political science analogy. YOu're just going to have to trust me on this.  The breakfast menu at bk or the clown place is the only think they sell that doesn't take like fucking garbage.  Seriously they're oinly places wher eyou take you rkids to runn and scream for 2 hours and while you eat their chicken mcnuggets and lie about it.
[/quote]Not sure what this is about but QFT anyway. lol

[.quote author=Crouton link=topic=67313.msg2231952#msg2231952 date=1580027206]

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: January 25, 2020, 07:51:26 PM »
What? No! MSM trying to influence people against Bernie? Come on! I just don't see it! You guys just see boogeymen everywhere!   

For real tho, I am dead against socialism and don't want Sanders to succeed whatsoever. But I don't want him defeated by manipulation from the MSM. I find their behavior repulsive as usual.

A little late, but here's a vid that I thought was quite relevant to this discussion.


26

On one hand, . . . On the other hand,

Let us know when you make up your mind.
I would lean toward encouraging people to get vaccines but not forcing them.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Tulsi Gabbard GOP Mole?
« on: January 22, 2020, 05:58:58 PM »
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479320-gabbard-suing-clinton-for-defamation-over-russian-asset-comments

Aha!  Gabbard is suing Hillary for calling her a Russian asset.

This is exactly what a Russian asset would do!
What a conundrum. Before she sued she may have been able to make the case that Hillary had no grounds, but the very act of suing provided the missing evidence. However, it's obvious that Hillary wasn't basing her remarks on the provided evidence unless she's a time traveler. So is she guilty or not?

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: January 22, 2020, 05:26:50 PM »
a win, win, win! Win for Bullwinkle, Win for Heiwa, Win for The Flat Earth Society.
Except that Anders isn't a flat earther.
The win for Anders is $3k of graphics for $1200! I can't imagine why he'd turn that down!

29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: January 22, 2020, 05:18:39 PM »
Did Heiwa ever by Moose a ticket to go visit him yet?

Nope, and I'm about ready to unpack my suitcase.

Should we mount another campaign? One last ditch effort? Or nah?

Heiwa, internationally recognized boatswain and bon vivant,
deserves another chance.

I offered a complete business graphics update
($3000 value) in exchange for a $1200 plane ticket.

I told him I would buy my own room, wine and French whores.

(I don't think he has control of his own finances.)
Sounds like a win, win, win! Win for Bullwinkle, Win for Heiwa, Win for The Flat Earth Society. I'm sure Heiwa will take you right up on it. He must not have seen your post yet!

30
Perhaps it's like the weather. The further out you predict the less accurate it becomes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144