Saturday, April 29, 2023

Where's Tucker?

Roger Kimball, "Is it too late to save America?"
Our biggest threat isn’t Russia or China, but our own elite

Regular readers may recall how fond I am of a mot from the British diplomat, author and art collector Edgar Vincent, the first (and, as it happened, the last) Viscount d’Abernon: “An Englishman’s mind works best when it is almost too late.”

When I first encountered Lord D’Abernon’s saying, I was impressed by its slightly disabused cheerfulness. “Whew,” I thought. “As usual, some impending disaster was neatly avoided at the last moment by the wit and pluck of the doughty Brits.”The drama of the near-escape added to the sweetness of relief. " Surely we Yankees — most of whom, until recently, were basically displaced Brits — could also be counted on to display the requisite derring-do at the critical moment.

Could we though? “Almost too late.” That is, “very close to, but not quite.” Is that where we are now? Or is it more a case, like some victims of the Borgias’ art, of having been dosed with some slow-acting poison? There is no antidote, but it may take months for serious symptoms to appear.

Johnny Mercer told us to “ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive.” Doubtless, from the perspective of psychological health, that is good advice. But that affirmative policy — basically, an exhortation to cheerfulness — is not quite the same as optimism, which was Dr. Pangloss’s folly.

As I write, the United States is some $32 trillion in debt. And that inconceivable sum, as pundits are quick to remind us, includes only the federal debt, the money we’ve borrowed or printed in order to continue living beyond our means. It does not include all the money we have promised to pay out in the near future. Those “unfunded liabilities” nudge the total up to something like $150 trillion.

But who’s counting? I think it was the political philosopher James Burnham who observed that where there is no solution, there is no problem. I suppose that can be read in a positive, Alfred E. Neuman sort of way.

But most of us understand that there are plenty of things whose thorny, problematic, unpleasant natures are not neutralized because they have no solution. Burnham’s point — part of it, anyway — was that there is no use in fretting about inevitable evils. If they are truly inevitable, they will come no matter what we do. But that commendably stoic attitude can easily shade into defeatism, something else Johnny Mercer would have cautioned against.

Many historians of the Great War point out how clement and welcoming the summer of 1914 was. Canny observers could see political storm clouds gathering on the horizon, but they seemed to be offset by the merry weather and that sensation of animal complacency that longstanding, unbesieged prosperity encourages.

As I write, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, the leaders of Russia and China, have just met in Moscow in a public festival of anti-American good feeling. The Saudis are making nice with Iran, which is eagerly pursuing its program to acquire nuclear weapons.

And speaking of weapons, the United States seems to have given away huge swaths of its own stockpiles. According to one report, as winter ended, more than a million rounds of 155 mm howitzer ammunition, 8,500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, 32,000 anti-tank missiles of other types, 5,200 Excalibur precision 155 mm howitzer rounds and 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, among many other munitions, had been sent free of charge to Ukraine to aid in its battle against Russia.

This has left the United States with a weapons cupboard whose store is variously described as “uncomfortably low,” “insufficient,” “precarious” and “dangerous.” This is doubtless something that China, looking anew and longingly at Taiwan, has noticed.

On the bright side, the Pentagon has taken steps to assure that American military personnel be addressed by their preferred pronouns and to provide service members a process through which “they may transition gender while serving.” The army may be unprepared to go to war on an actual battlefield, but at least the battle against what Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called “white rage” is proceeding apace.

An Englishman’s mind may work best when it is almost too late. But as Aristotle pointed out in the Nicomachean Ethics, one can act in such a way that it is no longer possible to choose the right course of action. “When once you have thrown a stone, you cannot just will it to return.”

At his rally in Waco, Texas, at the end of March, Donald Trump said that he had recently been asked, “Who’s our biggest threat? Is it China? Is it Russia?” “No,” Trump answered, “our biggest threat are high-level politicians that work in the United States government.” Some people thought that hyperbolic, if not faintly unpatriotic.

I suspect that Trump was right. In 1940, George Orwell put the point with his customary aplomb. “For two hundred years,” Orwell wrote in “Notes on the Way,” “we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire.”

Sometimes, alas, it really is too late.

32 comments:

Dervish Sanders said...

It isn't too late to save America. Vote to give our fantastic president Joe Biden a 2nd term in 2024. Also vote a straight Democratic ticket so Democrats retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House 😊

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

...and a Kawanio che Keeteru to you too, Dervy!

Dervish Sanders said...

If (somehow. Probably by cheating) the Orange Turd is "elected" potus in 2024 -- We (Democrats and sane republicans) won't rise up and exercise our "right of revolution"? The "right of revolution" is a right that can only be exercised by trumpturds?

I think (if tRump "wins") we could see people taking to the streets in huge numbers, mass protests, work stopages that would bring the economy to a halt and possibly even violence.

The American people hate tRump and do not want him back in the White House.

Anonymous said...

So what? If it'll be decided with votes. ;-)

Dervish Sanders said...

The democracy-hating Qtard confirms that (as far as he is concerned) the "right of revolution" is for republicans only. Yes?

Q said...

What "yes"???

How your claim relates to my words EVEN???????????????

:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Dervish Sanders said...

"How your claim relates to my words EVEN"... You completely forgot about advocating "right of revolution" for J6 rioters? Are you going to deny what you wrote many times? Perhaps demand a "precise quote"? FM.

Q said...

First. There is NO "right of revolution". Period.

Second. There is instilled in YOUR DAMN USA Constitution RIGTH to rise AGAINST unlawful tyrany.

THAT IS claims I did. And it's easy for me to repeat. Again and again.
Cause, that is my natural inclination -- to say facts.

You... keep trying to gaslight and strawman your opponents... because that is YOUR inclination, I presume -- to spread propaganda and twist fact and truthful meanings.

Thgat's all. ;-P

Dervish Sanders said...

*You* keep trying to gaslight and strawman your opponents... Because that is your nature. As an FM and an amoral lying POS.

Q said...

Well. O.K. You reassured me. You are completeidiot. Yawn. :-(

Dervish Sanders said...

You argued that the J6 rioters had the right to revolt MANY times. Now you say there is no such right. YOU are clearly trying to gaslight me, asshole. Why you accused me. You know damn well what you are doing, shithead.

There is no "right to revolt" in the US Constitution. In any case, there was (and still is) no tyranny for them to revolt against.

You reassured me. YOU are a complete idiot.

Q said...

\\You argued that the J6 rioters had the right to revolt MANY times. Now you say there is no such right.

Well. How I can stop myself from answering. :-))))))
When yopu asking so politely. Not. :-)))))))))))

1) There is NO. Cannot be. Stated in the Constitution. "right of revolution"

2) But never the less. That is NATURAL RIGHT of people. Which do not need to be distinguished and described in constituition. Because it IS THAT basic.
Right to rise against injustice -- how anybody see fit.


You will not understand that anyway.

Cause you are that brain-damaged r.b.

But still, I expalined it. ;-P





\\there was (and still is) no tyranny for them to revolt against.

That is. NOT. Up to you. To decide.

Otherwise.

Why your revolted against Only True Power Directly From God -- King of Great Britain????

Are you criminals? ;-P



\\You reassured me. YOU are a complete idiot.

You forgot to add "Yawn". Yawn. :-)))))))))))))))))))

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

First Qtard wrote, "There is instilled in YOUR DAMN USA Constitution RIGTH to rise AGAINST unlawful tyrany".

Then he totally contradicted his previous comment, writing "There is NO. Cannot be. Stated in the Constitution. right of revolution".

PROOF Qtard is a FM.

Next, replying to my comment about there being no tyranny for the J6 rioters to revolt against, Qtard said, "That is. NOT. Up to you. To decide"... which is a moronic strawman. I didn't decide anything. Reality and facts decided there was no tyranny. YOU said you do not believe Joe Biden was illegitimately elected. A democratic election your candidate lost is not tyranny.

Re, "Why your revolted against ... King of Great Britain? Are you criminals?"... No. The revolutionaries ALL died a long time ago. The "you" you refer to are people all born after the revolution. Nobody who took part in the revolutionary war is alive today.

Q said...

\\Then he totally contradicted his previous comment, writing "There is NO. Cannot be. Stated in the Constitution. right of revolution".

Yeh.

It's too damn hard for a such r.b.
To grasp.
That there is difference between "right of revolution" and "uprise against injustice".



\\Next, replying to my comment about there being no tyranny for the J6 rioters to revolt against, Qtard said, "That is. NOT. Up to you. To decide"... which is a moronic strawman. I didn't decide anything.

Huh???

While that is even in your words here. "there being no tyranny for the J6 rioters to revolt against" -- that is YOUR damn opinion.

Opinion -- you cannot yoke J6 rioter with... well, if yopu are lawful and democratic person, who know what human rights is about.

But you are not.

You are religious bomker. And totalitarian wannabe. ;-P

PLUS.

Yet one demonstration how your miserly brains cannot make you understand mere words your are trying to use.

Strawmaning -- that is incorrect method of discussion, based on pretence that opponent said something that he didn't said... and criticising him on this base.

Another word -- sole method of discussing you yourself demonstrate ability to show. Here. :-)))))))))))))))))



\\Reality and facts decided there was no tyranny.

Go state.
Definition.
What is fact.
What is Reality.
For a such miserable religious bonker. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))




\\A democratic election your candidate lost is not tyranny.

Why you loathing dRump so much then? ;-P



\\Re, "Why your revolted against ... King of Great Britain? Are you criminals?"... No. The revolutionaries ALL died a long time ago. The "you" you refer to are people all born after the revolution. Nobody who took part in the revolutionary war is alive today.

So??? Your ancestors was criminals? ;-P

Dervish Sanders said...

"...that is YOUR damn opinion"... It is a fact. If there was tyranny, what was it? Can you even explain what this alleged tyranny was? YOU said you were not disputing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. So WHAT actual tyranny could the J6 rioters have been revolting against???

"You are religious bomker. And totalitarian wannabe"... There is no such thing as a "religious bomker" so I could not possibly be one. As for your other BS claim, I strongly oppose totalitarianism.

"Your ancestors was criminals?"... My ancestors immigrated from Europe a long time after the revolutionary war ended.

Q said...

\\"...that is YOUR damn opinion"... It is a fact.

Yap.
That is a fact -- that you stated such an opinion. ;-P
Basless and bonker's one. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))




\\If there was tyranny, what was it? Can you even explain what this alleged tyranny was?

What and how that particular people feel.

They have moral and practical autonomy -- to decide for themself.

That is called Natural Human Rights.

To breath. To think. To do what they like/want/desire to do. ;-P




\\YOU said you were not disputing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. So WHAT actual tyranny could the J6 rioters have been revolting against???

Ask them.
Why you ask me??? :-))))))

Like.
Example at hand.

YOU.
HERE.
Saying that you "believing in facts".

And I. Instead of prescribing and demending of you to submit -- I just asking you -- why you think that way??? How?????? You can think that way? ;-P

So.
If you really want to know -- WHY that J6 rioters thought that they was uprising against tyranny -- go ask em directly.

Isn't that logical. And easy to understand?



\\I strongly oppose totalitarianism.

That is nothing.
It is known that totalitarians DO "strongly oppose totalitarianism."
Especially when that is OTHER's countries/societies/types of totalitariansims.

Have you heard about Religious Wars?

That's it. Each of religious bonkers is 100% PRO his own religion. And equally 100% ANTI every other.

PLUS ONE trait of totalitarian religious bonker konfirmed. Thank yiou. ;-P




\\"Your ancestors was criminals?"... My ancestors immigrated from Europe a long time after the revolutionary war ended.

:-))))))))))))))

So? They willfully sumbitted and united with criminal organization????

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Qtard: ...you stated such an opinion. Basless and bonker's one.

No. I stated fact. As proven in a court of law.

Qtard: To breath. To think. To do what they like/want/desire to do.

If their desire is to break the law -- and they do -- they are arrested. If caught. Many J6 rioters have been caught, arrested and prosecuted. "Feeling" that there was tyranny does not give citizens the right of revolution. You believe so because you are a FM.

Qtard: If you really want to know -- WHY that J6 rioters thought that they was uprising against tyranny -- go ask em directly.

I don't need to ask them, moron. They told everyone. The reason is imaginary election theft that installed Joe Biden illegitimately. Why I asked if you believed Joe Biden was an illegitimate president. You said NO. So you AGREE the J6 rioters had NO legitimate reason to revolt.

Qtard: PLUS ONE trait of totalitarian religious bonker konfirmed. Thank yiou.

Yes, that you favor totalitarianism HAS been confirmed. Many times. Via your support for seditionists who sought to overthrow a legitimately democratically elected president (Joe Biden).

Qtard: They willfully sumbitted and united with criminal organization.

No. The United States is not a "criminal organization". As per England, the US and their country have a special relationship.

Q said...

\\No. I stated fact. As proven in a court of law.

Yeah... like there is a court that would admit someone being "revolutioners". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Like.
If Washington lost -- he never would be "father founder", but just a miserly criminal.
That's it. ;-)



\\If their desire is to break the law -- and they do -- they are arrested. If caught. Many J6 rioters have been caught, arrested and prosecuted. "Feeling" that there was tyranny does not give citizens the right of revolution.

That's it.
That's why there is NO. And cannot be ANY codex of law, that would contain "right of revolution". ;-)



\\You believe so because you are a FM.

Bullshit strawmaning. As I ONLY continue repeat one and the same -- like just above. That there is NO, and cannot be "right of revolution".

So... your tryes to proclaim that I "believe" something that I openly and repetitively OPPOSE TO... that is clear idiocy and bonker's claims. ;-P



\\So you AGREE the J6 rioters had NO legitimate reason to revolt.

Just AFTER you'll say what was LEGITIMATE reason to revolt for your "father founders of USA". ;-P




\\Yes, that you favor totalitarianism HAS been confirmed. Many times. Via your support for seditionists who sought to overthrow a legitimately democratically elected president (Joe Biden).

Clear bonker.
Where??? And HOW??? Those who revolt against system? Are totalitarians???
In what dictionary??? :-))))))))))))))))))
Totalitarianism -- that is system of TOTAL oppression, based on ideas that people have no and CANNOT have any agency of thei own, and MUST only SUBMIT -- and that is what YOU demonstrating here and now. ;-P



\\No. The United States is not a "criminal organization". As per England, the US and their country have a special relationship.

Like between a prison... and run away prisoner. ;-P
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Qtard: Yeah... like there is a court that would admit someone being "revolutioners".

Courts usually don't "admit" things that are false.

Qtard: If Washington lost -- he never would be "father founder", but just a miserly criminal.

Washington never was a "father founder"

Qtard: Bullshit strawmanning. As I ONLY continue repeat one and the same -- like just above. That there is NO, and cannot be "right of revolution".

That isn't what you said previously. You insisted there was. And that this right was in the US Constitution. No "independent sovereign nation"... it was what Qtard wrote.

Qtard: Those who revolt against system? Are totalitarians??? In what dictionary?

Regarding the J6 rioters, YES. Because they revolted against democracy to install the candidate that lost. It is this way in ALL dictionaries.

Qtard: Totalitarianism -- that is system of TOTAL oppression, based on ideas that people have no and CANNOT have any agency of thei own, and MUST only SUBMIT -- and that is what YOU demonstrating here and now.

I support democracy and oppose totalitarianism. Democracy gives people a voice via their vote. You lie and say democracy equals "total oppression" because YOU support totalitarianism. A support for totalitarianism that you have demonstrated here many times.

Qtard: Like between a prison... and run away prisoner.

No, like between two independent sovereign nations. England says US is not an independent sovereign nation? England says US is a colony in rebellion? Your proof? Qtard will produce none. Because none exists.

Q said...

\\Courts usually don't "admit" things that are false.

Also... they do not admit things that is not provable. "Beyond reasonable doubts".

Well... usually.

But such a derpy as you are would like it to not be true.

As totalitarian you'd like people to be convicted trought courts for some ad hok "crimes". ;-P




\\Washington never was a "father founder"

Well... they all look the same for me, as foreigner.




\\That isn't what you said previously. You insisted there was.

Then... where is your CORRECT quote of MY words? ;-P




\\And that this right was in the US Constitution.

Heh.

That is a shame.

When some losy foreigner knows YOUR Constitution better then you.

But yeah, USA Constitution us a constitution of Democratic country, with Human Rights instilled in it... and you are, totalitarian.

So, no surprises here. ;-P

You naturally cherry-picking what your totalitarian soul desire and conviniently forget... about that most important part.




\\No "independent sovereign nation"... it was what Qtard wrote.

Your amount of INCORRECT citations of my words is so big.

So I will not double-check it here. And will assume that it is strawmaning AGAIN.

Yawn.




\\I support democracy and oppose totalitarianism.

That decided by DEEDS. Not words.

On words ALL totalitarians of all times claimed being MOST DEMOCRATIC.

Like liliPut and Xi of China doing today -- they even loathing USA for being "undemoctatic".

And with your behavior -- you showed your desire of totalitarian rule -- like control of people's thought and behavior.




\\Democracy gives people a voice via their vote.

Naah.

Democracy GARANTING Human Rights.

Because WITHOUT Human Rights -- right to vote can be mangled ANY TIME.

And it mangled into oblivion EACH TIME in EACH TOTALITARIAN COUNTRY.

Without exceptions.




\\ A support for totalitarianism that you have demonstrated here many times.

Yeah? And you can support this your claim with CORRECT quites?

Yeah. As I thought.

Yawn. :-)))))


-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

...on "the courts"...

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Qtard: As totalitarian you'd like people to be convicted trought courts for some ad hok "crimes".

As a totalitarian that is something Qtard might like. I, as a strong supporter of democracy, would be strongly opposed to this.

Qtard: Then... where is your CORRECT quote of MY words?

Another Qtard dodge. If I give a quote, you say it isn't "correct". YOU KNOW you said it.

Qtard: Heh. That is a shame. When some losy foreigner knows YOUR Constitution better then you.

You obviously do NOT.

Qtard: "Democracy gives people a voice via their vote"... Naah.

Yes. The definition of democracy says it is a "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system".

Electoral System... aka voting. Voting is fundamental to democracy.

Qtard: Yeah? And you can support this your claim with CORRECT quites?

I can't. Because I don't know what "correct quites" are. Also because, even if I give you a correct quote, you will just lie and say it isn't correct. To summarize, it is your support for the J6 insurrectionists that PROVES you favor totalitarianism. They wanted to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the legitimately elected candidate based on a false belief that the election was "stolen". Qtard doesn't care. Because he SUPPORTS the overthrow of democracy via the installation of the candidate that LOST.

Q said...

\\As a totalitarian that is something Qtard might like.

And? Quotes?

In the contrary...


\\I, as a strong supporter of democracy, would be strongly opposed to this.

That is you are one who keep hawling dRump being guilty -- even without court trial. ;-P
Totalitarian alignment -- proved.
You want people to be put in jail just because of your unlawful whims. ;-P

That is how much you are "demon-rattic". <--- SARCASM!!!
YOU DENY right of people to be DECIDED being guilty ONLY through court judgment.



\\Another Qtard dodge. If I give a quote, you say it isn't "correct". YOU KNOW you said it.

Totalitarian alignment showed AGAIN. Full throttle Orvellian to boot.
That people SHOULD admit things is not how they look like (quotes that blatantly INCORRECT... like, impossible to find em with Ctrl-F), but... the way totalitarian want em to be. Yawn.



\\Qtard: Heh. That is a shame. When some losy foreigner knows YOUR Constitution better then you.

\\You obviously do NOT.

Empty yapping.

Where's quotes that prove this your meamingless otherwise words???




\\Yes. The definition of democracy says it is a "government by the people;

And how that people can govern???
If they have no properties? If they cannot protect their rights in court? If they have no access to information?

And only going in straight columns to a voting booths... under whips of "government by the people" assigned controllers.

Perfect schema, that would look like Perfectly the Democracy in the eyes of totalitarian-wannabe-Derpy, isn't it? (watch out, question mark) ;-P




\\I can't. Because I don't know what "correct quites" are.

Yap.
I agree with you.
You -- don't know.
Cause you are uneducated and unteachable religious bigot -- Derpy.
Yawn.

Dervish Sanders said...

Qtard: "As a totalitarian that is something Qtard might like"... And? Quotes?

We have been over this MANY times, idiot. You know what comments you made. Comments supporting and arguing in favor of the J6 overthrow of a fair Democratic US election to install an unelected candidate.

Qtard: That is you are one who keep hawling dRump being guilty -- even without court trial.

Qtard strawman. There is a big difference between my opinion that tRump is guilty and a court finding tRump guilty. Qtard can't acknowledge the difference because, if he does, his BS strawman argument falls apart.

Qtard: Totalitarian alignment -- proved. You want people to be put in jail just because of your unlawful whims.

Quote me. You can't because I have never said anything like that. I want tRump jailed after being tried and convicted. That Qtard is a liar has been confirmed.

Qtard: YOU DENY right of people to be DECIDED being guilty ONLY through court judgment.

Quote where I support this. It isn't even be possible in the United States. There would have to at least be a sham trial first. I want donald tRump to be convincted after facts are presented in a legitimate trial. Your assertions to the contrary are baseless ad hominem.

Minus FJ frequently expresses his strong opinion that Joe Biden and his son are guilty of corruption. Yet the hypocrite Qtard hasn't branded Minus FJ a "totalitarian wannabe". There was been no trials or convictions re the alleged corruption of either Joe or Hunter Biden, Qtard.

Qtard: And how that people can govern??? If they have no properties? If they cannot protect their rights in court? If they have no access to information?

Huh? US citizens have access to these things, dipshit.

Qtard: ...that would look like Perfectly the Democracy in the eyes of totalitarian-wannabe-Derpy, isn't it?

No.

Qtard: watch out, question mark

Right. Qtard is Just asking questions. "Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable ... by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent..."

JAQ is a dishonest debate tactic. Why Qtard uses it -- he is a dishonest person.

Qtard: Yap. I agree with you. You -- don't know.

I said I don't know what a "correct quite" is, asshole. What you wrote. I DO know what a "correct quote" is. It is a Qtard dodge and FM game he likes to play.

You know what you wrote and that it proves me correct. So (to dodge) you ask for "correct quote". Then, when I give you the requested quote, you lie and say it is somehow "incorrect".

Q said...

\\We have been over this MANY times, idiot. You know what comments you made. Comments supporting and arguing in favor of the J6 overthrow of a fair Democratic US election to install an unelected candidate.

Yes. I "know what comments *I* made."
And this here -- that is YOUR words. Not MY words.
I don't need to treat as truthful account of what I said.
Cause, you showed that you able to give as an "argument" only some loosy clowning strawmaning.
And NO FACTS. ;-P
As you did in this comment and in all around.

Actually, you make FACTUAL claims SO DAMN RARE... that I properly salute to each of such rarities. ;-P

But that is... not this time. Far-far not. :-)))))))))))))))))





\\Qtard: That is you are one who keep hawling dRump being guilty -- even without court trial.

\\Qtard strawman. There is a big difference between my opinion that tRump is guilty and a court finding tRump guilty.

Of course!

Cause USA is democratic country. And USA courts runned by USA judges who are democratic too.

But you are -- totalitarian... wannabe.

As that, it is natural that YOUR blurts are different from democratic courts judgments. No?





\\Qtard can't acknowledge the difference because, if he does, his BS strawman argument falls apart.

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Like?

Just above^^^^^^




\\Quote me. You can't because I have never said anything like that. I want tRump jailed after being tried and convicted. That Qtard is a liar has been confirmed.

Yawn.

And you'd hypocritically try to pretend that you don't see that quote... as you did many-many times already.

Boring. Go do Ctrl-Fing yourself. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))





\\Minus FJ frequently expresses his strong opinion that Joe Biden and his son are guilty of corruption. Yet the hypocrite Qtard hasn't branded Minus FJ a "totalitarian wannabe"

But... there was some facts provided.
Well... which was percieved as incorrect or faked ones. Under more close examination.

But... from YOUR side... NO facts was provided what'so'ever. NONE.

Only "somebody-somebody who was saying something-somthing" to which I everyone need to religiously believe being truth.

That is HELLA BIG difference. ;-P

FACTS

and

NON-FACTS.

Accusations can be based on FACTS only!

Q said...

\\Qtard: And how that people can govern??? If they have no properties? If they cannot protect their rights in court? If they have no access to information?

\\Huh? US citizens have access to these things, dipshit.

Yeah... and that makes you so sad and grumpy. ;-P

If one would judge from your never ending yapping about how dRump still not in jail. Or I... still not shuddupped myself "to not involve" myself. As it would be in "trully democtatic" Rusha or China.

Where such a ounks like me do not allowed to say a word against religious bonkerism, like yours. ;-P




\\Qtard: ...that would look like Perfectly the Democracy in the eyes of totalitarian-wannabe-Derpy, isn't it?

\\No.

And? Elaborate it, please? ;-P





\\Right. Qtard is Just asking questions. "Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable ... by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent..."

Yap... from POV(point of view) of religious bonker and totalitarian wannabe.

Asking question -- IS THE BIGGEST NO-NO!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))

Because, in a Heavenly World -- NOBODY allowed to ask question, isn't it?




\\JAQ is a dishonest debate tactic. Why Qtard uses it -- he is a dishonest person.

Go base it with some links, would ya? ;-P




\\Qtard: Yap. I agree with you. You -- don't know.

\\I said I don't know what a "correct quite" is, asshole. What you wrote. I DO know what a "correct quote" is. It is a Qtard dodge and FM game he likes to play.

I'll place that "rebuffs" alongside. For it moronity to be EVEN MORE apparent.

"I said I don't know what a "correct quite" is, asshole."
"I DO know what a "correct quote" is."

"I don't know"... but "I do know". :-))))))))))))))))))))))

Self-contradictiory denial? ;-P

(btw... you did mistyping here -- "quite"... but do I fuss bout it? No. Cause I smart ;-P)





\\You know what you wrote and that it proves me correct. So (to dodge) you ask for "correct quote". Then, when I give you the requested quote, you lie and say it is somehow "incorrect".

Of course.

Cause I show where exactly and how and why it is INCORRECT.

And that FACTUALLY TRUE corrections driving you mad, isn't it, Derpy?

You accustomed for your words not be analysed and rebuffed in such a logically flawless way. Yes? ;-P

Too bad.

You'll have nothing else from me here. ;-P

So you can put your tail in between your (rear) legs... and run away. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

"that makes you so sad and grumpy"... qtarded mind reading. Also incorrect.

"Where such a ounks like me do not allowed to say a word against religious bonkerism, like yours"... there is no "religious bonkerism" from me for you to say anything about. You can only say something about "religious bonkerism" that I possess exclusively in your delusions.

"that would look like Perfectly the Democracy in the eyes of totalitarian-wannabe-Derpy, isn't it? \\No. \\And? Elaborate it, please?"... OK, I can elaborate. What you were doing (with your disingenuous query) is known as begging the question. As per Wikipedia, "begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. ...it is not a valid argument".

"\\JAQ is a dishonest debate tactic. Why Qtard uses it -- he is a dishonest person\\ Go base it with some links, would ya?"... I JUST DID. "Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable ... by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent...".

"I don't know... but I do know. Self-contradictiory denial? btw... you did mistyping here -- quite"... YOU "mistyped" it, not me. And there was no contradiction... for people (like Qtard) who don't have reading comprehension problems.

"And that FACTUALLY TRUE corrections driving you mad, isn't it, Derpy?"... No. Because you haven't "analysed and rebuffed in such a logically flawless way" ANYTHING I have written. You only THINK you have. Because you are a delusional FM.

Q said...

\\"that makes you so sad and grumpy"... qtarded mind reading. Also incorrect.

Well... I may be wrong with thin differences in meaning of English words. I admit it.

So, how all that your fuss and whining can be called???

All that "you are dishonest person"? "You do baseless ad hominem"? And etc?




\\there is no "religious bonkerism" from me for you to say anything about. You can only say something about "religious bonkerism" that I possess exclusively in your delusions.

Hmmm... then why my delusion manifestate itself in Reality???
In a form of two big countries -- China and Rusha, for the very least.
And your religious bonkerism -- in a form of strawmaning of my words -- exist only in your mind???

Redefinition of word "delusion"... here using you??? :-)))))))))))




\\OK, I can elaborate.

Yahoo!! :-)))





\\What you were doing (with your disingenuous query) is known as begging the question.

Naah.
Your claim was that having elections is quite enough for being called Democracy. While I clearly and openly stated -- that it starts from Human Rughts. Like... people, of their free will, unite their efforts -- to initiate and support "government by the people", to keep protecting that freedoms.
And elections -- that is just a FORM of how they do it. While SUBSTANCE of Democracy -- it's preservation of that Natural freedoms.

See that directions. Freedoms --> then --> Elections.

But, from your early statements I dewised that you have totally OPPOSITE idea. That "Elections give Freedoms".

That's why I asked you to konfirm and elaborate.

As your simple "No" cannot be understood. Per se.





\\"Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable ... by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent...".

I mean.

WHO ELSE says it like that???

For now, you are the first and only who formulate it that way.

That's why I asked for links -- to confirm it independently of you.

Or... more like, from where you took that garbage. ;-P




\\"I don't know... but I do know. Self-contradictiory denial? btw... you did mistyping here -- quite"... YOU "mistyped" it, not me.

Oh...

And why you repeated it? What for??? :-))))))))))))))))))




\\And there was no contradiction... for people (like Qtard) who don't have reading comprehension problems.

Some bogus babbling.
An attempt of strawmaning?
But I, as a "people (like Qtard) who don't have reading comprehension problems." do not see it as meaningful EVEN. ;-P
Means, it failed, fell on its face.




\\"And that FACTUALLY TRUE corrections driving you mad, isn't it, Derpy?"... No. Because you haven't "analysed and rebuffed in such a logically flawless way" ANYTHING I have written. You only THINK you have. Because you are a delusional FM.

And as we can see higher.
You "delusional" means something opposite to a usual meaning. ;-P

But still... it rises interesting an interesting question of cognitive reliativism -- how one can be sure that what and how one think -- is right, correct way of thinking?

Dervish Sanders said...

Qtard: All that "you are dishonest person"? "You do baseless ad hominem"? And etc?

You alleged that I am sad and grumpy because US citizens have properties, can protect their rights in court, and have access to information. You did not end with a question mark either.

It had nothing to do with "fuss and whining" re me correctly calling you out as a dishonest person who bigly utilizes logical fallacies in your arguments.

Qtard: ...then why my delusion manifestate itself in Reality? ... Redefinition of word "delusion"... here using you?

Your delusions do not manifest themselves in reality. I use the dictionary definition of "delusion".

Qtard: ...I dewised that you have totally OPPOSITE idea. That "Elections give Freedoms".

You "dewised" incorrectly. Many countries call themselves democracies and hold sham elections. Elections must be fair. Which the last US presidential election was. A fact you admitted (that Joe Biden is the legitimate president). The logical conclusion is that there was no tyranny for the J6 rioters to rebel against. You claim otherwise because you are logic-adverse. You think rebellion is ok based on "feeling" there was tyranny. Because YOU are a totalitarian fan.

Qtard: You "delusional" means something opposite to a usual meaning.

No.


Q said...

\\You alleged that I am sad and grumpy...

And I gave my elaboration:"
If one would judge from your never ending yapping about how dRump still not in jail. Or I... still not shuddupped myself "to not involve" myself. As it would be in "trully democtatic" Rusha or China.
"

Why you ignoring it?

Because of you grumpiness? And sadness? That you cannot disprove it -- because it's truth. ;-P And You do no like truth.



\\It had nothing to do with "fuss and whining" re me correctly calling you out as a dishonest person who bigly utilizes logical fallacies in your arguments.

Like you EVER was able to demonstrate what is NOT true and what is logically fallacious in my word. ;-P

No... you only screaming. Calling my liar and etc.

So... it gives me all reasons... not, it limits my ability to come to any other conclusion -- apart fomr that that you are lying hypocrite who stuck inside the web of own lies and denials. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))

Because... to state Truth is much more easy, than to make good enough, not self-contradicting from get go net of lies.



\\Your delusions do not manifest themselves in reality. I use the dictionary definition of "delusion".

It was said about "In a form of two big countries -- China and Rusha, for the very least."

So what? China andRusha ARE NOT totaslitarian countries??? Where people prosecuted for telling truth.

You are clearly parted with Reality. To mean that is true. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

So? Who is delusioned here?

And who "use the dictionary definition of "delusion"." here???

Clearly NOT you. ;-P





\\Qtard: ...I dewised that you have totally OPPOSITE idea. That "Elections give Freedoms".

\\You "dewised" incorrectly.

See.

You CONFIRMED it.

But... I predict it -- that you will oppose that you written it. Soon.
As you already did many times.



\\Many countries call themselves democracies and hold sham elections. Elections must be fair.

And HOW elections can be fair??? If Human Rights of people NOT garanted.

Like on your South of USA... was slaves ABLE to vote as they like???
To free themself from slavery... throught "fair elections"???



\\The logical conclusion is that there was no tyranny for the J6 rioters to rebel against.

That is NOT your right to decide INSTEAD of them... what they think is a "tyrany" for them.

You. Here. Demonstratting SAME ideology as South Jentlmens -- who thought that they BETTER know what thie slaves want.

Are they among your ancestry?

Well, they ARE ancesters of your Demon-ratic Party. ;-P And that is Historical Fact. :-))))))))))))))

So... that is not surprising.



\\You think rebellion is ok based on "feeling" there was tyranny. Because YOU are a totalitarian fan.

Self-contradictory BS.

Where did you SAW totqalitarians that proclaim that rebellion is allowed???
Totalitarianism is a system BUILT to thwart and OPPOSE ANY possibility of rebellion even.





\\Qtard: You "delusional" means something opposite to a usual meaning.

\\No.

And THAT you call "logical explanation"???
Just a statement of your sheer denial -- "No".

Q said...

\\\\Qtard: ...I dewised that you have totally OPPOSITE idea. That "Elections give Freedoms".

\\\\You "dewised" incorrectly.

\\See.

\\You CONFIRMED it.


Err... I have read it as "correctly".

Because later you elaborated it in accordance with "(fair) elections gives freedom".

So? Still. What EXACTLY "incorrectness"??? Do you see?



BTW


Good example of how hard it is to understand short exclaims (like "No") without additional context added.

Anonymous said...

Derpy Derpy Doo???