This is the thing about authoritarian regimes: they’re terrible at everything. They can’t feed their people. They can’t provide security for their people. They can’t educate their people. But they only have to be good at one thing to survive. If they can deny political alternatives, if they can force all opposition into exile or prison, they can survive, no matter how incompetent or corrupt or terrible they are.
- Stephen Kotkin, "The Weakness of the Despot"
That how Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro does it. That's how Joe Biden does it.Get in, @VivekGRamaswamy lays out his plan to Save The Internet from:
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 11, 2024
- Government censorship
- Federal agency mis/disinfo grants
- Supranational orgs like WEF that drive censorship advertiser boycotts pic.twitter.com/fNhCtz8nxy
54 comments:
What is temperature under which Democracy in USA bur... melting?
It's right at the melting point. Prosecuting political enemies is new. It started with actual crimes (Nixon/Watergate) and has steadily increased from there (Clinton Lewinsky intern abuse to complete Trump Russiagate/ insurrection fakery).
The Overton Window has been shifted.
Minus: Trump Russiagate/ insurrection fakery...
Both of those things happened. The only fakery is the right's cover up.
WHY DEMNs cannot PROVE it in court for good then????
What's the problem???
You keep bubbling that "proofs is apparent". But still UNABLE to show em.
Did it, Dervy? I hear that the FBI has been ordered to surrender Seth Rich's computer to a legal team...
:)
Qtard: You keep bubbling that "proofs is apparent". But still UNABLE to show em.
The proof has been shown many times. You just babble nonsense about the proofs being "somebody said something".
Proof re the J6 insurrection -- obviously you forgot it. Due to "hysterical amnesia"? Many cases have been proved in court and defendants given lengthy prison sentences.
But you probably know nothing about that. Despite it being discussed here -- and you participating in those discussions. Do you need a quote to remember? I'm not going to give one. I don't give a shit about your faulty memory.
Minus: I hear that the FBI has been ordered to surrender Seth Rich's computer...
You didn't read the article linked to on twitter? Just the headline?
Rich's death sparked a wave of now-debunked conspiracy theories claiming he was responsible for publicly leaking thousands of DNC emails relating to the involvement of Russian hackers in the election of Donald Trump. Far-right figures alleged he was killed as part of a cover-up. NewsWeek.
Your delusions are telling you that the laptop being turned over means the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is going to be un-debunked? Why, did the pro-tRump FBI dummy up some fake evidence that will "prove" Seth Rich stole the DNC data?
The Pre-bunk is just now reaching the De-bunk stage, Dervy. Hold onto your hat!
You love "oficialista revisions" to data, don't you?
So, your delusion is that, when dotard donald gets back in power, his administration will clear him of colluding with Russia? Why would I believe that?
Will Hillary Clinton also be arrested for ordering the hit on Seth Rich?
Quote: That's how Joe Biden does it.
It isn't. The criminal ex president donald tRump is being prosecuted by state AGs and an independent prosecutor. Joe Biden has been completely hands off. Of course that isn't going to stop the false allegations. Made to protect the criminal ex president.
"He hasn't gotten away with anything yet".
Remember who said that? It was the cowardly Mitch McConnell's excuse for not voting to impeach.
So... dotard donald can't be held accountable by impeachment. Nor can he be held accountable by the criminal justice system.
Only under "authoritarian regimes" are criminal politicians not above the law apparently.
Is the prosecution of Bob Menendez another example of political persecution by the Biden "authoritarian regime"?
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Qtard: You keep bubbling that "proofs is apparent". But still UNABLE to show em.
\\ The proof has been shown many times.
See?
What I keep saying -- NO proofs, NO facts... only babbling. ;-P
Of imbecile that can not get what FACTS IS.
\\Proof re the J6 insurrection -- obviously you forgot it. Due to "hysterical amnesia"? Many cases have been proved in court and defendants given lengthy prison sentences.
YET MORE babbling.
\\But you probably know nothing about that. Despite it being discussed here -- and you participating in those discussions. Do you need a quote to remember? I'm not going to give one. I don't give a shit about your faulty memory.
AND.
Yeah. Right.
ONLY YET MORE of absolutely EMPTY -- means NOT based on ANY facts babbling.
But.
You are imbecile... not for nothing. :-)))))))))))))))))))0
\\Only under "authoritarian regimes" are criminal politicians not above the law apparently.
Yeah,
Like Navalny in Russia. ;-P
Qtard is doing a LOT of babbling. Followed by a moronic comparison of dotard donald to Navalny. So that means Joe Biden is Putin? I take it that's the imbecile's assessment?
Will Hillary Clinton also be arrested for ordering the hit on Seth Rich?
Is there a statute of limitation on murder?
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Qtard is doing a LOT of babbling. Followed by a moronic comparison of dotard donald to Navalny. So that means Joe Biden is Putin? I take it that's the imbecile's assessment?
Yes. Yours. ;-P
Well... separately, it is YET ONE stark confirmation of: that Derpy have alter-egos, talkind about itself, and "Qtard" it's one of em. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))0
He suffers from TDS and QDS...
Why suffer??? He... well, it... enjoying it, to the utmost. ;-)
Minus: Is there a statute of limitation on murder?
Well, when Hillary Clinton is dead she won't be able to be falsely charged with murder. Though I doubt it will happen while she is still alive. Given that she did not murder anyone. Or order the murder of anyone.
Qtard: Yes. Yours
Lie. I was talking about holding tRump accountable for his crimes. You brought up Navalny, obviously comparring the two. I REJECT your comparrison.
Qtard: ...it is YET ONE stark confirmation of: that Derpy have alter-egos, talkind about itself, and "Qtard" it's one of em.
Lie. An incredibly transparent one too. You are "Qtard". That "Qtard" is my alter ego -- that is a delusion produced by your defective mentality ill brain.
Minus: He suffers from TDS and QDS...
No.
Qtard: Why suffer??? He... well, it... enjoying it, to the utmost...
No.
Aren't you supposed to be in Davos?
\\Qtard: Why suffer??? He... well, it... enjoying it, to the utmost...
\\No.
NewSpeak "Yes". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
No.
...confirmed!
You are confirming my "no" and that I don't use NewSpeak? Thank you.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
But.
Continue-c0ntinue. :-)))))))))))))))))
You're merely thinking in NewSpeak, Dervy.
No.
And... CONFIRMATION... in NewSpeak. ;-P
I confirm I do not use NewSpeak. I also confirm I have never used NewSpeak.
Said liar. Imbecilic liar. That showed NOT ONCE how it eager to lie even against ABSLUTELY OBVIOUS fact -- like its own lying words, just previously said. EVEN IN PREVIOUS SENTENCE of SAME COMMENT. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ough Coughs... everybody should believe to such a lies... take am as truth. Ough Coughs... if they are idiots themself, that everybody. (like bunch of DEMN-rats in their rat nest) :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: That showed NOT ONCE how it eager to lie even against ABSLUTELY OBVIOUS fact -- like its own lying words, just previously said. EVEN IN PREVIOUS SENTENCE of SAME COMMENT.
Bullshit. You lie. That never happened.
Dervy can honestly state that he's impervious to mythbusters. And Q and I can certify the fact.
The Russiagate myth, the J6 myth, the Charlottesville myth, the "Trump will be a dictator starting Day 1" myth...
Impervious.
I think that Dervy believes in more myths than Herodotus ever did!
\\Bullshit. You lie. That never happened.
Well... if *I* lie. And you claim that you see that *I* lie.
It... LOGICALLY... must mean that you know The Truth. Isn't it? HOW'd you be able to DISCERN that there is a lie, otherwise???
FACTUAL. LogicAL. OBJECTIVE. Truth.
Which same LOGICALLY must mean -- that you ABLE to DEMONSTRATE it.
By refering to a fact. Providing quote. Because Truth -- it's FACTS.
But.
Naaaah.
You NEVER able.
Means. That its "You lie" is just miserly imbecilic backbite -- empty unfounded and imbecilic Lie. By itself.
And that is CONCLUSION based on facts (your own imbecilic babbling) and logic (precisely explained).
\\That never happened.
Too bad. You thought that I will see it a tedious task. And will not provide PERFECTLY PRECISE EXAMPLE/QUOTE of it?
Too bad. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Here it is.
Just from other recent thread.
\\Qtard: when you'd admit that babbling "I believe in facts"...
\\Impossible. Given that I never babbled that. <<--- Obvious LIE. You did repeated that ""I believe in facts"" many-many times.
\\I stated that I believe facts. <<--- Just a CONFIRMATION of what I said higher -- that you like to place lies in very next sentence. OFTEN! Like with placing some A claim... then NOT-A claim IN VERY NEXT SENTENCE -- and that is clearly NOT any truthful way of "saying Truth". That is -- NewSpeak like talks. ;-)
\\Believing facts is no kind of error. It is what smart people do. Why you're always babbling about how you don't believe them.
And you KEEP repeating imbecilic bullshit -- imbecilic, cause you CANNOT provide ANY logical justification of it. ;-P
ONLY more of the same baseless babbling.
Minus: The Russiagate myth, the J6 myth, the Charlottesville myth, the "Trump will be a dictator starting Day 1" myth... Impervious.
Yeah, because none of those are "myths". They actually happened. There is video evidence.
Qtard: You thought that I will see it a tedious task. And will not provide PERFECTLY PRECISE EXAMPLE/QUOTE of it?
Yeah. You won't. Proven by fact that you did not.
Qtard: Obvious LIE. You did repeated that ""I believe in facts"" many-many times.
No. I have not.
How can two sentences that do not match be "perfectly precise"? Obviously the imbecile has no idea what "precise" means.
Qtard: \\I stated that I believe facts. <<--- Just a CONFIRMATION of what I said higher -- that you like to place lies in very next sentence. OFTEN!
Never. Why would I? That would be obvious and dumb. Instead it's obvious you lie. Given that the two sentences do not match.
Qtard: ...you CANNOT provide ANY logical justification of it.
There is no logical justification to believe facts? Because they're true? I know you don't care about that. You only care if you like them or not.
That there is no anthropomorphic global climate change is a (false) fact Qtard "knows" is true.
\\Yeah, because none of those are "myths". They actually happened. There is video evidence.
Evidences???
That NO court admitted being evidences??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
Of I-N-S-U-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Yeah. You won't. Proven by fact that you did not.
Yeah. OBVIOUS IMBECILIC COUNTER-FACTUAL *lie*.
But.
Continue-continue.
Confirming being I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E -- that CANNOT grok it -- that THE MORE times you'd be saying/writing here such COUNTER-FACTUAL lies -- the more it will be CONFIRMATION of MY conclusion -- that IT is nothing but imbecilic liar.
Yawn.
But.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Obvious LIE. You did repeated that ""I believe in facts"" many-many times.
\\No. I have not.
OBVIOUS *lie*.
Anybody can just search for "I believe in facts" in this blog -- to confirm how OFTEN one certain I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E have repeated that imbecilic claim.
Yawn.
But.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\How can two sentences that do not match be "perfectly precise"? Obviously the imbecile has no idea what "precise" means.
Tsk-tsk-tsk.
\\...PERFECTLY PRECISE EXAMPLE/QUOTE of it?
Or... imbecile just decided to reveal -- that its mind capacity ALLOWS it to grok only pairs of words... simultaneously. Three or more words glued together. Or even more -- a whole sentence. Is just impossible to grok... for imbecile.
Well... that would explain it. All. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I stated that I believe facts. <<--- Just a CONFIRMATION of what I said higher -- that you like to place lies in very next sentence. OFTEN!
\\Never. Why would I? That would be obvious and dumb. Instead it's obvious you lie. Given that the two sentences do not match.
Yeah.
YOUR words DO NOT match.
And that is how LIE manifests itself... in words of horrendous imbecile. :-)))))))))))))))
Saying that there is A... and then NOT-A. That is the most basiest way to say a LIE.
BECAUSE.
A.
And.
NOT-A.
CANNOT BE a Truth SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Like "sky is blue" and "sky is NOT blue". ;-P
Or "Sun rising in the morning" and "Sun DO NOT rising in the morning". ;-)
Because THINGS... as PARTS of Reality -- CANNOT be, and NOT be. EXIST. And NOT EXIST, in one and the same time. ;-P
But... imbecile WILL SHOW how it CANNOT grok it... am I right??? :-)))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: ...you CANNOT provide ANY logical justification of it.
\\There is no logical justification to believe facts?
Yeah.
You gotcha. ;-P
But... you will show in a jiffy, WHY you are imbecile. :-)))))))))
\\Because they're true? I know you don't care about that. You only care if you like them or not.
Tsk-tsk-tsk...
Not true or not true.
Because FACTS -- as parts of Reality -- BY DEFINITION -- are true.
So. FACTS. Real Deal FACTS. FACTS CAN be ONLY true.
All question about FACTS can be -- exist they, or not exist.
Does "Sun rising in the morning"? IT IS. Because that is FACT.
Does "Earth is flat"? Naaah. Even though it looks like that... to idiots. ;-P
Which mean -- question is -- do somebody KNOW some fact. Or they NOT. ;-)
And I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E I talking with here -- do not know. Cause it believing, imbecilicly, that facts can be "believed in". Anyhow. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))00
Qtard: That NO court admitted being evidences??? ... Of I-N-S-U-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N.
There are two courts that have. So far.
A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. link
A court in Maine said the same thing.
Qtard: Yeah. OBVIOUS IMBECILIC COUNTER-FACTUAL *lie*.
Obvious fact.
Qtard: Confirming being I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E -- that CANNOT grok it -- that THE MORE times you'd be saying/writing here such COUNTER-FACTUAL lies...
No.
Qtard: ...the more it will be CONFIRMATION of MY conclusion -- that IT is nothing but imbecilic liar.
I agree. But is even more confirmation of you being an imbecilic liar really needed?
Qtard: Obvious LIE. You did repeated that ""I believe in facts"" many-many times// No. I have not// OBVIOUS *lie*.
No.
Qtard: Anybody can just search for "I believe in facts" in this blog -- to confirm how OFTEN one certain I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E have repeated that imbecilic claim.
Yeah, you. If it was me you could give a quote. But you haven't and you won't.
Qtard: Tsk-tsk-tsk. ...PERFECTLY PRECISE EXAMPLE/QUOTE of it?
You didn't give one!
Qtard: ...its mind capacity ALLOWS it to grok only pairs of words... simultaneously. Three or more words glued together. Or even more -- a whole sentence. Is just impossible to grok... for imbecile.
I do it every day.
Qtard: Well... that would explain it. All.
If I can't understand sentences how am I able to reply to anything you write?
Qtard: \\I stated that I believe facts. <<--- Just a CONFIRMATION of what I said higher -- that you like to place lies in very next sentence. OFTEN!\\Never. Why would I? That would be obvious and dumb. Instead it's obvious you lie. Given that the two sentences do not match\\Yeah. YOUR words DO NOT match.
Lie. You're matching up YOUR words with mine. YOUR words don't match mine.
Qtard: And that is how LIE manifests itself... in words of horrendous imbecile.
Your admission?
Qtard: Saying that there is A... and then NOT-A. That is the most basiest way to say a LIE.
I've never done that.
Qtard: BECAUSE. A. And. NOT-A. CANNOT BE a Truth SIMULTANEOUSLY. Like "sky is blue" and "sky is NOT blue".
The sky ... is just transparent air, "a stage upon which all colors dance". But as light from the sun enters into Earth's atmosphere, the different colored wavelengths making up that light start bumping up against the air and "dancing" differently.
The shorter blue and violet wavelengths get scattered most by the air, making the sky around us APPEAR blue.
Qtard: Because THINGS... as PARTS of Reality -- CANNOT be, and NOT be. EXIST. And NOT EXIST, in one and the same time.
You think this is something I have claimed? When? Regarding what?
Qtard: But... imbecile WILL SHOW how it CANNOT grok it... am I right???
I dunno why you're babbling about things existing not existing. What does your babbling have to do with this conversation?
Qtard: ...you CANNOT provide ANY logical justification of it\\ There is no logical justification to believe facts?\\ Yeah. You gotcha.
So, as per Qtard, I should disbelieve that the sun rises in the morning?
Qtard: But... you will show in a jiffy, WHY you are imbecile.
Because I said "believe" instead of "know"? That makes someone an imbecile? What about someone (you, for example) who says they "know" some fact -- but they're wrong? What they say is a fact -- is not a fact? Or what if this person (you) says something is a fact -- when it isn't?
Qtard: So. FACTS. Real Deal FACTS. FACTS CAN be ONLY true.
But you've said (numerous times on this blog) that real deal facts are "somebody said something something" or that a real deal fact is "propaganda".
Qtard: Does "Sun rising in the morning"? IT IS. Because that is FACT.
You just said I should disbelieve that the sun rises in the morning.
Qtard: Does "Earth is flat"? Naaah. Even though it looks like that... to idiots.
You?
Qtard: Which mean -- question is -- do somebody KNOW some fact. Or they NOT. ... And I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E I talking with here -- do not know. Cause it believing, imbecilicly, that facts can be "believed in".
You can give a quote where I've said that? I doubt it.
Qtard: And I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E I talking with here...
You're talking with yourself? I thought you were talking to me. No? Should I not respond but allow you and your alter egos to talk amongst themselves?
Trying to bury by piling mindless babbling over mindless babbling?
What an ingenious tactic... naaaah. :-)))))))))))))))
Things are simple.
You said.
\\Impossible. Given that I never babbled that.
\\I stated that I believe facts.
So.
Either you'd CONTINUE claiming that you -- didn't.
But that'll be an obvious lie. And you are a liar.
Or.
You can claim "I said it, but it means something else".
And with this CONFIRM yet one time -- that you are I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E -- which dunno how to speak properly EVEN. ;-P
But.
You ALREADY provided more then enough number of evidences here... that you are BOTH.
AND lying imbecile.
AND imbecilic liar.
Yawn.
Qtard: Either you'd CONTINUE claiming that you -- didn't.
I didn't.
Qtard: But that'll be an obvious lie. And you are a liar.
It is an obvious truth. And YOU are a liar.
Qtard: Or. You can claim "I said it, but it means something else".
I didn't say "I believe in facts". You lie. And your lie is obvious. Given that your words (the ones you claim I said) DO NOT MATCH the words I admit saying.
And NO QUOTE. Of course. Because what I didn't say can't be quoted. Not with a link.
\\Qtard: Either you'd CONTINUE claiming that you -- didn't.
\\I didn't.
And it... shamelessly confirmed being lair. :-))))))))))))))0
\\Qtard: But that'll be an obvious lie. And you are a liar.
\\It is an obvious truth. And YOU are a liar.
Yeah. OBVIOUSLY what LIAR would say -- something opposite to a Truth.
YET ONE confirmation.
Thank you.
\\I didn't say "I believe in facts". You lie.
And you did not write THIS words TOO???
THIS QUKTE -->>> \\I stated that I believe facts.
Just recently.
Oh, yeah???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well. ;-P
You trying to squint it with pretense that there is no "in fact". I see through your imbecilic tricks right away.
So.
Here.
politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com
https://politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com/2023/04/...
Political Tea Leaves: Censor More Speech, Censor More Speech!
Apr 3, 2023 · Dervish Sanders said... Yap. I admit it. I believe in facts. Unlike Qtard.…
Yeah!
That's authentic imbecile's Derpish Sadners speech. ;-P
One of many-many more.
But now.
Imbecile will try to say "You not gave quote", "it's just 'what imbecile said means'" or any other such BS -- imbecilic lie.
But.
Nothing biggy.
I never awaited any other, like non-imbecilic, or just slightly LESS imbecilic retort... from imbecile.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
I have my faith in you. ;-P
In your I-M-B-E-C-I-L-I-T-Y.
https://politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com/2023/04/...
Why couldn't you give a full link?
https://politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com/2023/04/censor-speech-censor-speech.html?showComment=1681736561433&m=0#c377954584577010235
That is the full link. But I had to hunt for it.
Anyway, I said from the start that I didn't remember ever writing "I believe in facts".
Yet you kept claiming I did without giving a quote. So I (naturally) assumed you were lying.
I believe facts. And I have certainly written that more frequently than "I believe IN facts".
...what's the difference between when we say "believe" and "believe in"?
"Believe” by itself means to think that something is true. “Most people believe the earth is round” means that most people think the world is spherical.
“Believe in” is a phrasal verb that has two different meanings. One is to think that something exists — when someone says, “I believe in God,” it means that person thinks that God exists.
The other meaning of “believe in” is “to have faith in someone or something.” For example, when a law school graduate is about to take the bar exam, and a friend says, “I believe in you,” it means the friend has faith in the person’s ability.
I believe facts. I do not believe IN facts. But you found that I wrote that once. So I guess I'm lying again. According to the idiot whose comments are consistently riddled with moronic spelling errors. That idiot is going to nitpick over me writing "in" once.
The Idiot also thinks writing "believe" instead of "know" is proof of "religious bonkery".
If I write "know" instead of "believe" going forward I doubt the idiot will no longer claim "religious bonkery".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/verb
Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
\\Anyway, I said from the start that I didn't remember ever writing "I believe in facts".
Of course you are... cause you are mentally impaired cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Yet you kept claiming I did without giving a quote. So I (naturally) assumed you were lying.
Yep. You. As cretin. Obviously decided that your OPINION, or just baseless desire for it to be true... is MUCH MORE important and credible -- than FACTS.
Oh, yes. I get it. No. I got it long-long ago. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Like Year ago, already. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But.
Continue-continue, cretin. Producing MORE cretinic EXCUSES. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\...what's the difference between when we say "believe" and "believe in"?
I. DON'T. CARE.
And it doesn't matter, anyway.
Because FACTS are solid and sound -- IT -- which going under nickname "Derpish Sadners" -- WAS, and STILL claim, that it "believes in facts" -- which is cretinic claim.
\\"Believe” by itself means to think that something is true.
And FACTS -- by definition -- CANNOT be NOT true. Because FACTS -- it's manifestation of Reality ITself, and Reality -- obviously EXIST.(but... cretin are free to claim that it not ;-P)
Only beliefs of cretin can, and in most cases ARE. FALSE. ;-P
That's why ONLY mentally impaired brains of cretins... can produce such a cretinic claim, like "I believe facts"... like Flat-Earthers cretins, CLAIM that they *cannot* believe that Earth are spherical... because they "see it with own eyes"... that it flat. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\“Most people believe the earth is round” means that most people think the world is spherical.
And that is -- NOT fact. Regarding Earth. Same as "many people think that dRump is guilty" -- is not fact of its guilt. ;-P
As just a century ago "most of the people", was SURE in their "I believe fact -- that Earth is flat" -- was it influencing Earth, ANYHOW??? NO. And could not.
That was just FALSE BELIEFs. ;-P
Because most of people are idiots and "believe facts", "believe in facts", "trust experts", "have no doubts in government statistics" and etc, and etc, and etc... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ I believe facts. I do not believe IN facts. But you found that I wrote that once. So I guess I'm lying again.
Once??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Of course you lying -- cause you cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Which in its cretinic disfunction thinks that declaring "I do not remember saying that" COUNTS as truthful and FACTUAL. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But.
Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ The Idiot also thinks writing "believe" instead of "know" is proof of "religious bonkery".
Of course not.
I write "believe" many times. Because of you, mostly.
DEMONSTRATION of Religious Bonkery -- AS A SYSTEMATIC BEHAVIORAL PATTERN -- ARE. ;-P
But.
This simple sentence -- is too much to understand for such a cretin.
But.
Who cares??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Not me, for sure. ;-P
\\If I write "know" instead of "believe" going forward I doubt the idiot will no longer claim "religious bonkery".
Of course not. Cause religious bonkers trying to claim that they "know that Jesus existed" too. ;-P
\\be·lieve /bəˈlēv/verb
Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
Yeah.
Thing that cretin can not get -- that it RELATES to INNER feelings of a people.
NOT to OBJECTIVE REALITY itself.
Qtard: Obviously decided that your OPINION, or just baseless desire for it to be true... is MUCH MORE important and credible -- than FACTS.
Lie. I never decided that. From what I've seen, that is what you decided. Though you decided that your opinions to ARE facts.
Qtard: Oh, yes. I get it. No. I got it long-long ago.
You don't. You didn't.
Qtard: Like Year ago, already.
No.
Qtard: "know that Jesus existed"...
Fake quote. I never wrote that.
Qtard: ...that it RELATES to INNER feelings...
Oh, so Qtard thinks it is unimportant if people believe facts or not? Well, given it's support for fake news, that isn't surprising.
\\Lie. I never decided that. From what I've seen, that is what you decided. Though you decided that your opinions to ARE facts.
What a wise observation you did. ;-P
You gotcha. ;-)
Because MY opinions based on facts and logic. ;-P
\\Qtard: "know that Jesus existed"...
\\Fake quote. I never wrote that.
Yep.
Cretin cannot help it -- to confirm every time that it are miserly cretin -- unable to get examples. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Oh, so Qtard thinks it is unimportant if people believe facts or not? Well, given it's support for fake news, that isn't surprising.
YET ONE wise observation. ;-P
Because people fill their brains with all kinds of "beliefs in fact" and etc garbage... INSTEAD of KNOWLEDGE...
it happen what it said happen -- people start believing in fake news and propaganda. And even start thinking that it is ONLY TRUTH possible -- something-something told by somebody-somebody... :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But.
That's just an accident.
And cretin will show and prove that it is nothing else but accident, and will continue-continue... :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Because MY opinions based on facts and logic.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: "know that Jesus existed"...\\Fake quote. I never wrote that\\ .. unable to get examples.
You give that as an "example" because it fits your false narrative that I believe facts in a religious manner -- with no evidence.
Qtard: it happen what it said happen -- people start believing in fake news and propaganda.
Yeah, you.
\\You give that as an "example" because it fits your false narrative that I believe facts in a religious manner -- with no evidence.
Ehm???
Because you use CRETINIC definition of FACTS -- one where possible to "believe in"... something-something, said by somebody-somebody, as being fact...
INSTEAD of attaining KNOWLEDGE of facts. As parts of Objective Reality.
Which ONLY ARE true facts.
Yet one time.
Mere words of people -- are not facts (apart from fact that they babbled this or that), as people tend to lie, or report wrongly, misleading, or mistaken by themself...
Mere words of ANYBODY are always need to be CROSS-EXAMiNED.
With known facts and logic.
Until it will be confirmed. With "beyond reasonable doubt". Or even BEYOND.
What REALLY is FACT... and what is just delusions and human errs.
\\Qtard: it happen what it said happen -- people start believing in fake news and propaganda.
\\Yeah, you.
Obvious use of "you" instead of "I".
Yawn.
Qtard: Obvious use of "you" instead of "I".
No.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000
Post a Comment