Kremlin/FSB agents are not that openly "registered".
For em to be revealed as ones, one need to weasel-in into most darkest corners of KGB basments, break some safes and skim through cryptic documents in Russain. ;-P
And for that... one need to destroy an Evil Empire. Or two. ;-P (as it was with documents of Shtazi, for example)
Nothing SO easy and simple as WikiLeaks. ;-P Or Terxiera Files. :-)))))))))))
Minus: Talking about polling numbers is a betrayal of America?
It is. When the person you are "talking to" about these internal polling numbers is a Russian agent. And the purpose of this "talking about" is so Russians employed by Putin can micro-target Facebook political ads. That is collusion. What you say is a hoax.
Qtard: Religious one. ;-) No doubts.
You have no doubts because you are a FM. Neither centurs, man-eating horses (wtf?), harpies, nor hydras exist. Or have ever existed. Yet Qtard's strawman suggests I believe they do. Even "man-eating horses", which I have never heard of.
It would be a big problem if someone (a US politician, presumably) known as "Holy 0-bama" was colluding with Russia to win elections. Or had colluded with Russia to win elections. But this "holy 0-bama" does not exist. There is no such person. Regarding the former president Barack Obama (who is not "holy"), he didn't do what you baseless and factlessly accuse him of.
But donald tRump DID. Yet you defend tRump against these proven charges. Because donald tRump wasn't charged and convicted for colluding with Russia. When was Obama charged and convicted, shithead? When did anyone ever even make such an allegation against Obama? Based on facts and not delusions?
I thought you claimed I am a "religious bonker" because I believed the mythological Mares of Thrace actually existed. Now you say (apparently) I am a "religious bonker" because I didn't know what you were talking about?
FYI, "bonkers" means crazy. I have never heard of a "religious bonker". Maybe you mean "religious nutter"? But I have never said anything to suggest I am a religious nutter. QUOTE me. Anything I've ever written that is evidence of me being a religious nutter.
Qtard knows NOTHING about my educational background, my "teachability", my level of curiosity, or if I am (or am not) a believer in any religion.
A precise quote that proves I am a religious nutter. By itself. Not a quote then Qtard's bullshit interpretation of what I "really meant". Based on Qtard's delusion that I am an "open book" to him.
And as predmet of you believing is totally nutty -- you are religious bonker.
And that is not foul-mouthing or bad name calling -- just a definition by my miserably Engliush lang knowledge as foreigner.
Ifyou can I would be very greatful for your help with more precise, more nuanced definition though. ;-P
\\Regarding the former president Barack Obama (who is not "holy"), he didn't do what you baseless and factlessly accuse him of.
Yeah??? And there is no information about new and successful techiques his election commitie used towin???
Ough, coughs. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
ONLY when Nasty dRump used that same technic -- it was claimed unlawful and blamed "collusion with Rusha".
\\Yet you defend tRump against these proven charges.
Proven in court??? ;-)
\\Qtard knows NOTHING about my educational background, my "teachability", my level of curiosity, or if I am (or am not) a believer in any religion.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So? You mean that you are THAT clever??? That you are playing here as genius actor. Some totally fictitious person. Which have NOTHING in common with your "educational background, "teachability", level of curiosity"?????
Naah. You are talking from yourself. And as such -- reveal your basic and natural traits. Of a religious bonker and totalitarian wannabe ;-P
Qtard: Believing makes believer. And as predmet of you believing is totally nutty -- you are religious bonker.
My use of the word "believe" is not proof I am a "religious bonker". It is proof that I "have confidence or faith in the truth of" something. As per the definition. I haven't used it in a religious context. Why Qtard can produce no such quote. Qtard absurdly twists my use of the word "believe" to make me "religious bonker" with absolutely no proof. Except Qtard's delusions.
And that is not foul-mouthing or bad name calling -- just a definition by my miserably Engliush lang knowledge as foreigner.
The definition of "believe" isn't that it means religious belief. Or that it can only be used in a religious context. Your grasp of the English language is obviously that of a FM. Not just bad because (you claim) to be a foreigner (whose native language is not English, presumably).
Qtard: ONLY when Nasty dRump used that same technic -- it was claimed unlawful and blamed "collusion with Rusha".
This never happened. And not only because there is no country named "Rusha". Why you provided no evidence to support you claim. You can't.
Qtard: Proven in court???
You ONLY care about "proven in court" because it serves your defense of donald tRump. Re your BS allegations against Barack Obama, you cite no court case where they were proven. It is a "fact" simply because Qtard says so.
Qtard: You mean that you are THAT clever? That you are playing here as genius actor. Some totally fictitious person.
After reading Qtard's comments I have deduced that he is a FM. Is Qtard "acting"? Qtard is actually smart but pretending to be dumb? If so, I'd say he is doing a very good job. TOO good of a job to be an act.
Qtard: ...reveal your basic and natural traits. Of a religious bonker and totalitarian wannabe.
Falsities regarding my "basic and natural traits" have not been revealed. Because your ad hominem claims are completely false. Proven (in part) by your inability to provide a precise quote to back up your false claim that I am a "religious bonker". And not only because there is no such thing as a "religious bonker".
\\My use of the word "believe" is not proof I am a "religious bonker".
And your behavior too? ;-P
\\It is proof that I "have confidence or faith in the truth of" something. As per the definition.
BS. Facts do not need to """have confidence or faith in the truth of" something."" Cause facts are just the Truth itself. Reference to a Truth... if in the form of a words.
\\I haven't used it in a religious context.
Very idea that something can be (or cannot be) believed. As being a fact. Is EXACTLY religious. ;-P Like. "There is/was Jesus. Believe ME!!!!"
\\Why Qtard can produce no such quote. Qtard absurdly twists my use of the word "believe" to make me "religious bonker" with absolutely no proof. Except Qtard's delusions.
Easy-peasy.
Cause.
You are such a dumb r.b.
With your INCORRECT citations.
Here.
EVEN by that link YOU YOURSELF provided.
By https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe
CORRECT QUOTE: "verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:"
You such a funny twerp :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) That make no end of fun talking with you. Gift that just keep giving. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The definition of "believe" isn't that it means religious belief.
\\This never happened. And not only because there is no country named "Rusha". Why you provided no evidence to support you claim. You can't.
You can Google for it yourself. But you will not, cause that is AGAINST your beliefs. And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts... which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already.
So... why should I? ;-P I don't care. That is YOUR inner political brawls. I have NO involvment into. ;-P (go start it anew, your bonker's struggles to proclaim my "involvment") :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Re your BS allegations against Barack Obama, you cite no court case where they were proven.
Because. That was NOT criminal acts. As in case of Obama, as in case of dRump.
That is you Demn inner USA political fight -- when you Demns tryed to CRIMINALISE that thing. ;-P
A posteriori.
When you saw that you lost.
\\After reading Qtard's comments I have deduced that he is a FM.
And you can show process of that "deduction"??? :-))))))))))))))
Naah.
Cause you are dumbass r.b. Who just trying to use smart words. Without ANY actual knowning of what that words mean. :-)))))))))))))))
That's why you are so funny. ;-P With your brain.
\\Falsities regarding my "basic and natural traits" have not been revealed. Because your ad hominem claims are completely false.
See. Here is darn good example. You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that "falsities ... have been reveaked" AND "Because ...".
There must be chain of flawless logical inference. Like IF ... THEN things.
But... you can't do anything like that.
Cause you ARE narrow-minded r.b. :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Proven (in part) by your inability to provide a precise quote to back up your false claim that I am a "religious bonker". And not only because there is no such thing as a "religious bonker".
YOUR OWN WORDS.
As demonstration.
" I thought you claimed I am a "religious bonker" because I believed the mythological Mares of Thrace actually existed. Now you say (apparently) I am a "religious bonker" because I didn't know what you were talking about?
FYI, "bonkers" means crazy. I have never heard of a "religious bonker". Maybe you mean "religious nutter"? But I have never said anything to suggest I am a religious nutter. "
That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY. ;-P
Like here.
When you show that you know PERFECTLY WELL meaning of that words.
But... deny its applicability to yourself. :-)))))))))))))))))))
"You can Google for it yourself. But you will not, cause that is AGAINST your beliefs"... Dodge. I called you on your BS claim and YOU refuse to provide any evidence. Because you cannot. I also cannot. Same as I couldn't find out (via Google) the date when the US landed a spacecraft on the surface of the sun.
"And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts"... Sure. "Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen.
"which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already"... ZERO times.
"See. Here is darn good example. You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that falsities ... have been reveaked"... No. I do NOT see. I never wrote about anything being "reveaked".
"But... you can't do anything like that"... NO. YOU can't do anything like that. I asked for a quote that provides any evidence I am a "religious bonker". You moronically claimed my use the word "belief" is proof.
"That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY"... Naturally Qtard will deny that he is a big time rapist. How many men have you raped, Qtard? Will you deny raping any men? Even though that is what a rapist like Qtard (not wanting to go to prison) would do.
\\"And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts"... Sure. "Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen.
So??? If blind man do not see a Sun... it do not exist??? :-))))))))))
\\"which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already"... ZERO times.
That is just denial. Like childish "boo-boo-boo, I don't hear your, boo-boo-boo, I don't listen to you". ;-P And you said that you need proof that you are religious bonker -- here it is. But you... in such a state of denial. Will just continue your "boo-boo-booo"ing. :-))))))))))))))))
Nothing biggy. That'll just confirm my point futher. ;-P
\\"See. Here is darn good example. You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that falsities ... have been reveaked"... No. I do NOT see. I never wrote about anything being "reveaked".
Stopid dodge.
And INCORRECT citation.
Yawn. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\"But... you can't do anything like that"... NO. YOU can't do anything like that. I asked for a quote that provides any evidence I am a "religious bonker". You moronically claimed my use the word "belief" is proof.
Well. Show LOGICALLY how this your words ARE true.
But... you can't.
You just continue calling things you don't like "moronic", "unseen", "unproved" and etc.
But... as an religious bonker, it seems, you naturally cannot grasp -- that sheer your dislike of something -- it is NOT FACTUAL base for any such claims. ;-P
With this.
It is proved and confirmed -- that you are just a religious bigot.
Uneductaed. And unteachable. ;-P
\\"That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY"... Naturally Qtard will deny that he is a big time rapist. How many men have you raped, Qtard? Will you deny raping any men? Even though that is what a rapist like Qtard (not wanting to go to prison) would do.
Yeah. Good example. How junky/drunkard would react to a tryes to reveal how his addiction influance his judjment. ;-P He/she'd try to accuse opponent in something dirty. In response.
Qtard: If blind man do not see a Sun... it do not exist?
The blind man can confirm existence of sun by feeling it's warmth. Also by sighted people telling him about the sun. Idiot.
Qtard: That is just denial. Like childish "boo-boo-boo, I don't hear your, boo-boo-boo, I don't listen to you".
Qtard keeps tries to derp his "facts" into existence. Like a child repeating the same lies over and over.
Qtard: Stopid dodge. And INCORRECT citation.
The citation (one word) was CORRECT. You wrote "reveaked".
Qtard: You just continue calling things you don't like "moronic", "unseen", "unproved" and etc.
When I point out one of your claims is "unproved", it is because you didn't prove it. It is ON YOU to provide proof to back up your claims. Idiot.
Qtard: But... as an religious bonker, it seems, you naturally cannot grasp -- that sheer your dislike of something -- it is NOT FACTUAL base for any such claims.
Strawman. I give evidence. I provide facts. It is Qtard who believes his dislike proves claims he makes are factual.
Qtard: How junky/drunkard would react to a tryes to reveal how his addiction influance his judjment. He/she'd try to accuse opponent in something dirty.
You baselessly accused me of being a "religious bonker". Without ever providing any proof to back up your claim. Only insistence that denial is confirmation. You deny being a raper of MANY men, yes? I say (as per YOUR qtarded logic) your denial confirms your raping-of-men proclivities.
\\The blind man can confirm existence of sun by feeling it's warmth. Also by sighted people telling him about the sun. Idiot.
I know that you are idiot already. No need to give your singature so often. ;-P
But you yourself claimed: ""Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen."
But blind cannot see that fact that Sun exist. DIRECTLY.
Only some INDIRECT means to "see" they have.
Like you definitelly correctly stated, that: warmth they still can feel -- BUT, HOW they can know that is from Sun... and not from a lamp, or campfire??? or words of other people -- BUT, HOW they can know that that people do not lie to them... or that some other people LIE to that people... and so forth???
That is... what RELIGION based on -- people just keep telling each nother something, they claim being FACT... because some other people have had tell em about it before. ;-P
\\Qtard keeps tries to derp his "facts" into existence. Like a child repeating the same lies over and over.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Stopid dodge. And INCORRECT citation.
\\The citation (one word) was CORRECT. You wrote "reveaked".
Yep.
You are right.
When ONLY ONE word in quote is correct -- that is still an INCORRECT citation.
Because CORRECT citation NEED TO:
a) have ALL words precisely cited;
b) be correctly atributed AKA have correct context. ;-)
\\When I point out one of your claims is "unproved"
Ehhh???
And when was last time when you said that my some claim is "unproved"??? And asked, politely, to give more evidances and logical beef to it? Ahh????
And not that it is "unseen" or "moronic".
Remind me, please.
\\Strawman. I give evidence. I provide facts. It is Qtard who believes his dislike proves claims he makes are factual.
Ehhh??? Where???
Like in this paragraph???
Where you franticly stating that "It is Qtard who believes"... without ANY quotes even. Correct or incorrect. WHERE is that "evidances" you claim "I give evidence."??? WHERE is that "facts" you claim "I provide facts."???
While even how it formulated -- "his dislike proves claims he makes are factual" -- is deeply moronic. Where is ANY LOGIC in it??? The more I "dislike" it being fact THE MORE I still claim they are "factual"???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Such a hilarity. Only brain of religious bonker can produce. ;-P
\\You deny being a raper of MANY men, yes? I say (as per YOUR qtarded logic) your denial confirms your raping-of-men proclivities.
And why so?
Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion?
Nah.
You can't. ;-P
\\You baselessly accused me of being a "religious bonker". Without ever providing any proof to back up your claim.
But... your own words prove it.
Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
The sun DOES exist. Evidence that Barack Obama colluded with Russia (your allegation) does NOT. You are attempting to derail the conversation (with this BS about the sun and a blind man) to dodge the fact that you never provided any evidence to back up your allegations. You won't because you can't.
Re, "when was last time when you said that my some claim is unproved?"... Right now. I JUST did. Re your lies about Barack Obama.
Qtard: WHERE is that "evidances" you claim... WHERE is that "facts" you claim...
For every conversation we have ever had I'm supposed to go back and point out were I gave evidence and facts? Go f*ck yourself. Or use Ctrl+F, asshole. You know I have done this. You just call my facts and evidence "garbage" or "demn propaganda".
Qtard: Where is ANY LOGIC in it???
There is zero logic in it. Why you do it. You are logic adverse.
Qtard: Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion? Nah. You can't.
I can. Same way you concluded I am a "religious bigot". No facts at all. You said my denials were proof. Qtard denies raping many men same way an alcoholic denies being a drunk.
Qtard: your own words prove it.
What words OF MINE prove I am a religious bigot? None I have ever written that Qtard could quote. Why he hasn't. There are none.
Qtard: Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
Congrats admitting that FACT!!! :-)))))))))))))))))
\\Evidence that Barack Obama colluded with Russia (your allegation) does NOT.
Of course not. That is FAKE concocted by you on the whim. Your loosy try to strawman what I did not said.
My claim was that Obama used SAME techniques of influence of people to vote for him. As later dRump did.
But in case of dRump, your Demns tryed to criminalise it. By calling it "collusion".
That's all.
Or, for at lease that is how it look like from afar. To a foreigner. ;-P
\\You are attempting to derail the conversation (with this BS about the sun and a blind man) to dodge the fact that you never provided any evidence to back up your allegations. You won't because you can't.
More like... I don't care.
To provide facts to a such blind to a fact religious bonker who pnly "believe in facts" -- means, he believes only in THAT "facts" it likes.
That would be non=productive. Like "feeding swines with a pearls", so to say.
\\Re, "when was last time when you said that my some claim is unproved?"... Right now. I JUST did. Re your lies about Barack Obama.
Yap.
You concocted some strawmaning. Again. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\For every conversation we have ever had I'm supposed to go back and point out were I gave evidence and facts? Go f*ck yourself. Or use Ctrl+F, asshole. You know I have done this.
Naah. I don't.
You mangling my and your own words -- so often, that I could not be sure.
Well... you earlier words containe something, anything factual SO DAMN rarely... so I do not see a point to Ctrl-Fing it. What for? To dig out MOAR of your garbage thoughts??? But you producing em non-stop. There just no need to dig that pile of thought manure. As it pretty much the same smelly slimy BS everywhere. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\You just call my facts and evidence "garbage" or "demn propaganda".
Of course. Cause they are. Most of the time.
Here... when you stated open and obviopus, self-evidant FACT about Sun -- I properly congratualted, to such a rare occurance. ;-P
I'm glad you admitted that. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion? Nah. You can't.
\\I can.
Then... do it.
But, naah. You will not.
Because with yopur miserly brain capabilities -- that is freakingly impossible. You still not learned DEFINITION OF WHAT FACT is, even. ;-P
\\Same way you concluded I am a "religious bigot". No facts at all.
Your own admission "I believe in facts" is not a fact??? How come???
I'll double-check it.
Was it openly stated? Yes, and everyone can check it for themself. CHECKED.
Was it ovvious and self-evidant? Yes, it was stated directly as I quote "I believe in facts"... and franticly repeated many times. Conmfirmed after I asked additional question. CHECKED.
Was it ref to Reality? Yes, we are here in this blog, which is part of Reality itself. And that is open fact to anyone... well, with access to the Internet. CHECKED.
PERFECT MATCH!
You have said "I believe in facts" and that is -- exactly what infested with religious bonkerism would said. PROVED. ;-P
\\You said my denials were proof. Qtard denies raping many men same way an alcoholic denies being a drunk.
Little problem here.
That is only YOUR words about my denial. Your strawmaning.
While I... ALWAYS give PRECISELY CORRECT factual quotes which demonstrate your state of denial. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So... continue-continue, demonstrating what a religious bigot and lying-denying hypocrite you are. ;-P
\\Qtard: your own words prove it.
\\What words OF MINE prove I am a religious bigot? None I have ever written that Qtard could quote. Why he hasn't. There are none.
You said "I believe in fact". ;-P
Do you trying to say you did not? :-))))))))))))))))
But, you repeated it so many times.
\\Qtard: Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
\\Where??? Your delusions don't count.
Yeah... as self-proclaimed "bekliever in facts" AKA Religious Bonker -- you call facts you don't like delusions.
Qtard: Of course not. That is FAKE concocted by you on the whim. Your loosy try to strawman what I did not said. My claim was that Obama used SAME techniques of influence of people to vote for him. As later dRump did.
I "concocted" nothing. YOU said tRump used "same techniques" as Obama. This was during a discussion re tRump's campaign manager passing internal polling data to a Russian agent so Russia could use that data to micro-target Facebook ads. Barack Obama did NOT do this.
Qtard: You have said "I believe in facts" and that is -- exactly what infested with religious bonkerism would said. PROVED.
No. NOT proved. ALL you proved is that I wrote that I believe in facts. The second half of that statement is false.
Qtard: ...as self-proclaimed "bekliever in facts" AKA Religious Bonker -- you call facts you don't like delusions.
I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions.
Qtard: That is EXACTLY what religious bonker would do. PERFECT MATCH! AGAIN!!!
\\Qtard: That is EXACTLY what religious bonker would do. PERFECT MATCH! AGAIN!!!
\\So Qtard is a "religious bonker". PROVEN.
Yep.
Derpy just showed HOW MUCH religious bonker he is -- with his desire to ignore even closest to his eyes facts.
Like commenting to a quote he did... with some absolutely not based on logic or facts claims -- which is often.
But now... EVEN absolutely unrelated.
With only hope that sheer power of his "make believe" AKA "I believe in facts" -- and it will make it factual truth. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions.
So???
Can you confirm that?
That you have opened your eyes to The Truth, and ready to throw into garbage that false belief???
To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"?
Cause... I doubt it.
\\No. NOT proved. ALL you proved is that I wrote that I believe in facts. The second half of that statement is false.
What?
You do not know, do not believe that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?
Religion is complex thing. But even if marginally -- you behavior show such traits. How you showing some definitely religious behavior and looks like following some narrative.
\\ This was during a discussion re tRump's campaign manager passing internal polling data to a Russian agent so Russia could use that data to micro-target Facebook ads. Barack Obama did NOT do this.
Do you know and can show FACTS of first one? And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama? Who have had such a cosy relations with liliPut? Like own liliPut's words how Obama loathed need to go trough election cycle, to acqure power to give some help to his dear friend liliPut? ;-P
"To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"? Cause... I doubt it"... You are right to doubt. Because there were no errors in my truthfull comment. I will never admit that it is erroneous and untrue to believe facts.
"//I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions. // So??? Can you confirm that?"... YOU made the allegation. I am innocent until proven guilty. It is your obligation to confirm.
"You do not know ... that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?"... I *do* know this. Why your allegations are so absurd.
"Do you know and can show FACTS of first one?"... Yes.
"And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama?"... YOU made the allegation. I asked you for evidence to prove YOUR claim. Qtard demands I provide evidence for my allegations -- also evidence his allegations are not true? Do your own research, asshole.
\\"To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"? Cause... I doubt it"... You are right to doubt. Because there were no errors in my truthfull comment. I will never admit that it is erroneous and untrue to believe facts.
But that is the same as to say that you are religious bonker.
But you keep opposing it.
Self-contradictory.
You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
But will oppose a definition suiting it. :-)))))))))))))))))
That is religious bonkerism as it is. ;-P
Like among MAGAturds. Who behave like "deplorables"... but do not like and strongly oppose being called "deplorables". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\"//I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions. // So??? Can you confirm that?"... YOU made the allegation. I am innocent until proven guilty. It is your obligation to confirm.
But??? You confirmed it in paragraph above. ;-P
That you are STILL selfproud reloigious bonker who "believes in facts". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So... what else I need to confirm here???
I thought that you throwed aside that false faith... but seems like you not.
\\"You do not know ... that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?"... I *do* know this. Why your allegations are so absurd.
Well.
That is natural too.
Cause religious people ALSO call it absurd -- when contradictions of their faith showed to them.
That mean that that can be ONLY yet one confirmation of you being religious bonker. ;-)
Only thing I dislike -- when people trying to feed me counter-factual BS. And thing that opposite to a Truth.
\\"Do you know and can show FACTS of first one?"... Yes.
Then... show em.
That link... that is just "somebody-somebody who saying something-something", didn't you forget it?
\\"And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama?"... YOU made the allegation. I asked you for evidence to prove YOUR claim. Qtard demands I provide evidence for my allegations -- also evidence his allegations are not true? Do your own research, asshole.
Like you did any researches about dRump.
Naah. You just assumed that he is guilty, cause you don't like him.
Cause he is your political opponent.
Cause political propaganda told you that. ;-P
And.
I am... foreigner. Who do not listen for your political propaganda.
Neither from Rep nor your Demn side.
And... don't care about your inner political brawls.
Give me FACTS... or hit the road, Jack ;-P You will not have neither support nor loathing of your missive by political reasons from me.
Qtard: You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
The above is Qtard's admission that (to him) facts are "non-sensical BS". CORRECT citation.
Qtard: Cause religious people ALSO call it absurd -- when contradictions of their faith showed to them.
IDK why you keep derping about religion. I have yet to bring up the topic of religion or faith with you. Faith is belief without proof, btw. My belief in facts is contingent on the facts being proven. My belief in facts is not faith-based.
Qtard: Like you did any researches about dRump. Naah. You just assumed that he is guilty, cause you don't like him.
Wrong. I did a lot of research. Don't bother asking me what it is either. I not going to waste my time telling you for the 20th time. You are NOT INTERESTED in facts.
\\Qtard: You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
\\The above is Qtard's admission that (to him) facts are "non-sensical BS". CORRECT citation.
Non-factual. Yawn.
"Beliving in facts" -- that is meaningless non-sensical BS. And it stated properly there. Otherwise... YOU could give CORRECT, COMPLETE quote. But you can't.
Because you are naugty hypocrite and gaslighter, who trying to bend meaning of words, to "win an argument".
Because you ARE idiotic u.u.r.b. who cannot discuss things properly.
Because that is ONLY way you can support a conversation.
Because of not enough gray matter inside your scull.
Isn't Glenn Greenwald an official spokesman and agent for the Kremlin/FSB? :P
ReplyDeleteIs he registered as one? I know Hunter Biden isn't reghistered as a Chinese foreign agent.
ReplyDeleteWell Joe.
ReplyDeleteThere is weak claim from your side.
Kremlin/FSB agents are not that openly "registered".
For em to be revealed as ones, one need to weasel-in into most darkest corners of KGB basments, break some safes and skim through cryptic documents in Russain. ;-P
And for that... one need to destroy an Evil Empire. Or two. ;-P
(as it was with documents of Shtazi, for example)
Nothing SO easy and simple as WikiLeaks. ;-P Or Terxiera Files. :-)))))))))))
They locked up Trump's 2016 campaign manager (Paul Manafort) for not having "registered" as a foreign agent for Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteManafort was a Russian agent.
ReplyDeleteManafort likes bragging to friends and clients.
ReplyDelete...about getting away with betraying America?
ReplyDeleteIf he wasn't an ally, tRump would have tweeted about how Manafort should be executed.
Talking about polling numbers is a betrayal of America? LOL!
ReplyDelete...the sh*t that comes out of your mouth, Dervy. You live in a pretty precarious hyper-reality, no doubt!
ReplyDeleteReligious one. ;-) No doubts.
ReplyDeleteYou know full well how it is.
On example of legends of Greece. ;-)
Such a delirious imagination: centurs, man-eating horses, harpias, hydras and etc.
Minus: Talking about polling numbers is a betrayal of America?
ReplyDeleteIt is. When the person you are "talking to" about these internal polling numbers is a Russian agent. And the purpose of this "talking about" is so Russians employed by Putin can micro-target Facebook political ads. That is collusion. What you say is a hoax.
Qtard: Religious one. ;-) No doubts.
You have no doubts because you are a FM. Neither centurs, man-eating horses (wtf?), harpies, nor hydras exist. Or have ever existed. Yet Qtard's strawman suggests I believe they do. Even "man-eating horses", which I have never heard of.
\\...is so Russians employed by Putin can micro-target Facebook political ads.
ReplyDeleteAnd when Holy 0-bama doing it to win elections... that is no prob? ;-P
\\Yet Qtard's strawman suggests I believe they do. Even "man-eating horses", which I have never heard of.
And What did I said?
Uneducated. And unteachable. Religious bonker.
Who have no curiosity even. To know Ancient Greek legends. Where such things was presented uniquotously. ;-P
It would be a big problem if someone (a US politician, presumably) known as "Holy 0-bama" was colluding with Russia to win elections. Or had colluded with Russia to win elections. But this "holy 0-bama" does not exist. There is no such person. Regarding the former president Barack Obama (who is not "holy"), he didn't do what you baseless and factlessly accuse him of.
ReplyDeleteBut donald tRump DID. Yet you defend tRump against these proven charges. Because donald tRump wasn't charged and convicted for colluding with Russia. When was Obama charged and convicted, shithead? When did anyone ever even make such an allegation against Obama? Based on facts and not delusions?
I thought you claimed I am a "religious bonker" because I believed the mythological Mares of Thrace actually existed. Now you say (apparently) I am a "religious bonker" because I didn't know what you were talking about?
FYI, "bonkers" means crazy. I have never heard of a "religious bonker". Maybe you mean "religious nutter"? But I have never said anything to suggest I am a religious nutter. QUOTE me. Anything I've ever written that is evidence of me being a religious nutter.
Qtard knows NOTHING about my educational background, my "teachability", my level of curiosity, or if I am (or am not) a believer in any religion.
A precise quote that proves I am a religious nutter. By itself. Not a quote then Qtard's bullshit interpretation of what I "really meant". Based on Qtard's delusion that I am an "open book" to him.
ReplyDeleteEasy-peasy.
ReplyDeleteYour own admission that you "believe in facts".
Believing makes believer. ;-P
And as predmet of you believing is totally nutty -- you are religious bonker.
And that is not foul-mouthing or bad name calling -- just a definition by my miserably Engliush lang knowledge as foreigner.
Ifyou can I would be very greatful for your help with more precise, more nuanced definition though. ;-P
\\Regarding the former president Barack Obama (who is not "holy"), he didn't do what you baseless and factlessly accuse him of.
Yeah???
And there is no information about new and successful techiques his election commitie used towin???
Ough, coughs. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
ONLY when Nasty dRump used that same technic -- it was claimed unlawful and blamed "collusion with Rusha".
\\Yet you defend tRump against these proven charges.
Proven in court??? ;-)
\\Qtard knows NOTHING about my educational background, my "teachability", my level of curiosity, or if I am (or am not) a believer in any religion.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So? You mean that you are THAT clever???
That you are playing here as genius actor. Some totally fictitious person. Which have NOTHING in common with your "educational background, "teachability", level of curiosity"?????
Naah.
You are talking from yourself.
And as such -- reveal your basic and natural traits. Of a religious bonker and totalitarian wannabe ;-P
Qtard: Believing makes believer. And as predmet of you believing is totally nutty -- you are religious bonker.
ReplyDeleteMy use of the word "believe" is not proof I am a "religious bonker". It is proof that I "have confidence or faith in the truth of" something. As per the definition. I haven't used it in a religious context. Why Qtard can produce no such quote. Qtard absurdly twists my use of the word "believe" to make me "religious bonker" with absolutely no proof. Except Qtard's delusions.
And that is not foul-mouthing or bad name calling -- just a definition by my miserably Engliush lang knowledge as foreigner.
The definition of "believe" isn't that it means religious belief. Or that it can only be used in a religious context. Your grasp of the English language is obviously that of a FM. Not just bad because (you claim) to be a foreigner (whose native language is not English, presumably).
Qtard: ONLY when Nasty dRump used that same technic -- it was claimed unlawful and blamed "collusion with Rusha".
This never happened. And not only because there is no country named "Rusha". Why you provided no evidence to support you claim. You can't.
Qtard: Proven in court???
You ONLY care about "proven in court" because it serves your defense of donald tRump. Re your BS allegations against Barack Obama, you cite no court case where they were proven. It is a "fact" simply because Qtard says so.
Qtard: You mean that you are THAT clever? That you are playing here as genius actor. Some totally fictitious person.
After reading Qtard's comments I have deduced that he is a FM. Is Qtard "acting"? Qtard is actually smart but pretending to be dumb? If so, I'd say he is doing a very good job. TOO good of a job to be an act.
Qtard: ...reveal your basic and natural traits. Of a religious bonker and totalitarian wannabe.
Falsities regarding my "basic and natural traits" have not been revealed. Because your ad hominem claims are completely false. Proven (in part) by your inability to provide a precise quote to back up your false claim that I am a "religious bonker". And not only because there is no such thing as a "religious bonker".
\\My use of the word "believe" is not proof I am a "religious bonker".
ReplyDeleteAnd your behavior too? ;-P
\\It is proof that I "have confidence or faith in the truth of" something. As per the definition.
BS.
Facts do not need to """have confidence or faith in the truth of" something.""
Cause facts are just the Truth itself. Reference to a Truth... if in the form of a words.
\\I haven't used it in a religious context.
Very idea that something can be (or cannot be) believed. As being a fact. Is EXACTLY religious. ;-P
Like. "There is/was Jesus. Believe ME!!!!"
\\Why Qtard can produce no such quote. Qtard absurdly twists my use of the word "believe" to make me "religious bonker" with absolutely no proof. Except Qtard's delusions.
Easy-peasy.
Cause.
You are such a dumb r.b.
With your INCORRECT citations.
Here.
EVEN by that link YOU YOURSELF provided.
By https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe
CORRECT QUOTE: "verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:"
You such a funny twerp :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That make no end of fun talking with you.
Gift that just keep giving. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The definition of "believe" isn't that it means religious belief.
Just look above. ;-P
ReplyDelete\\This never happened. And not only because there is no country named "Rusha". Why you provided no evidence to support you claim. You can't.
You can Google for it yourself.
But you will not, cause that is AGAINST your beliefs.
And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts... which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already.
So... why should I? ;-P
I don't care. That is YOUR inner political brawls. I have NO involvment into. ;-P (go start it anew, your bonker's struggles to proclaim my "involvment") :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Re your BS allegations against Barack Obama, you cite no court case where they were proven.
Because.
That was NOT criminal acts. As in case of Obama, as in case of dRump.
That is you Demn inner USA political fight -- when you Demns tryed to CRIMINALISE that thing. ;-P
A posteriori.
When you saw that you lost.
\\After reading Qtard's comments I have deduced that he is a FM.
And you can show process of that "deduction"??? :-))))))))))))))
Naah.
Cause you are dumbass r.b. Who just trying to use smart words. Without ANY actual knowning of what that words mean. :-)))))))))))))))
That's why you are so funny. ;-P
With your brain.
\\Falsities regarding my "basic and natural traits" have not been revealed. Because your ad hominem claims are completely false.
See.
Here is darn good example.
You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that "falsities ... have been reveaked" AND "Because ...".
There must be chain of flawless logical inference. Like IF ... THEN things.
But... you can't do anything like that.
Cause you ARE narrow-minded r.b. :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Proven (in part) by your inability to provide a precise quote to back up your false claim that I am a "religious bonker". And not only because there is no such thing as a "religious bonker".
YOUR OWN WORDS.
As demonstration.
"
I thought you claimed I am a "religious bonker" because I believed the mythological Mares of Thrace actually existed. Now you say (apparently) I am a "religious bonker" because I didn't know what you were talking about?
FYI, "bonkers" means crazy. I have never heard of a "religious bonker". Maybe you mean "religious nutter"? But I have never said anything to suggest I am a religious nutter.
"
That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY. ;-P
Like here.
When you show that you know PERFECTLY WELL meaning of that words.
But... deny its applicability to yourself. :-)))))))))))))))))))
"You can Google for it yourself. But you will not, cause that is AGAINST your beliefs"... Dodge. I called you on your BS claim and YOU refuse to provide any evidence. Because you cannot. I also cannot. Same as I couldn't find out (via Google) the date when the US landed a spacecraft on the surface of the sun.
ReplyDelete"And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts"... Sure. "Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen.
"which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already"... ZERO times.
"See. Here is darn good example. You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that falsities ... have been reveaked"... No. I do NOT see. I never wrote about anything being "reveaked".
"But... you can't do anything like that"... NO. YOU can't do anything like that. I asked for a quote that provides any evidence I am a "religious bonker". You moronically claimed my use the word "belief" is proof.
"That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY"... Naturally Qtard will deny that he is a big time rapist. How many men have you raped, Qtard? Will you deny raping any men? Even though that is what a rapist like Qtard (not wanting to go to prison) would do.
\\"And even if I would provide such a links -- you would pretend being unable to see that facts"... Sure. "Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen.
ReplyDeleteSo??? If blind man do not see a Sun... it do not exist??? :-))))))))))
\\"which you demonstrated MANY, MANY, MANY times already"... ZERO times.
That is just denial.
Like childish "boo-boo-boo, I don't hear your, boo-boo-boo, I don't listen to you". ;-P
And you said that you need proof that you are religious bonker -- here it is.
But you... in such a state of denial. Will just continue your "boo-boo-booo"ing. :-))))))))))))))))
Nothing biggy. That'll just confirm my point futher. ;-P
\\"See. Here is darn good example. You. Dumbbass. Just don't know that between that falsities ... have been reveaked"... No. I do NOT see. I never wrote about anything being "reveaked".
Stopid dodge.
And INCORRECT citation.
Yawn. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\"But... you can't do anything like that"... NO. YOU can't do anything like that. I asked for a quote that provides any evidence I am a "religious bonker". You moronically claimed my use the word "belief" is proof.
Well.
Show LOGICALLY how this your words ARE true.
But... you can't.
You just continue calling things you don't like "moronic", "unseen", "unproved" and etc.
But... as an religious bonker, it seems, you naturally cannot grasp -- that sheer your dislike of something -- it is NOT FACTUAL base for any such claims. ;-P
With this.
It is proved and confirmed -- that you are just a religious bigot.
Uneductaed. And unteachable. ;-P
\\"That is the ssame DENIAL as of drug addict or alcogolic -- who obviosly deny that they junkeys/drunkards. NATURALLY"... Naturally Qtard will deny that he is a big time rapist. How many men have you raped, Qtard? Will you deny raping any men? Even though that is what a rapist like Qtard (not wanting to go to prison) would do.
Yeah.
Good example.
How junky/drunkard would react to a tryes to reveal how his addiction influance his judjment. ;-P
He/she'd try to accuse opponent in something dirty. In response.
Qtard: If blind man do not see a Sun... it do not exist?
ReplyDeleteThe blind man can confirm existence of sun by feeling it's warmth. Also by sighted people telling him about the sun. Idiot.
Qtard: That is just denial. Like childish "boo-boo-boo, I don't hear your, boo-boo-boo, I don't listen to you".
Qtard keeps tries to derp his "facts" into existence. Like a child repeating the same lies over and over.
Qtard: Stopid dodge. And INCORRECT citation.
The citation (one word) was CORRECT. You wrote "reveaked".
Qtard: You just continue calling things you don't like "moronic", "unseen", "unproved" and etc.
When I point out one of your claims is "unproved", it is because you didn't prove it. It is ON YOU to provide proof to back up your claims. Idiot.
Qtard: But... as an religious bonker, it seems, you naturally cannot grasp -- that sheer your dislike of something -- it is NOT FACTUAL base for any such claims.
Strawman. I give evidence. I provide facts. It is Qtard who believes his dislike proves claims he makes are factual.
Qtard: How junky/drunkard would react to a tryes to reveal how his addiction influance his judjment. He/she'd try to accuse opponent in something dirty.
You baselessly accused me of being a "religious bonker". Without ever providing any proof to back up your claim. Only insistence that denial is confirmation. You deny being a raper of MANY men, yes? I say (as per YOUR qtarded logic) your denial confirms your raping-of-men proclivities.
\\The blind man can confirm existence of sun by feeling it's warmth. Also by sighted people telling him about the sun. Idiot.
ReplyDeleteI know that you are idiot already. No need to give your singature so often. ;-P
But you yourself claimed: ""Facts" that do not exist cannot be seen."
But blind cannot see that fact that Sun exist. DIRECTLY.
Only some INDIRECT means to "see" they have.
Like you definitelly correctly stated, that:
warmth they still can feel -- BUT, HOW they can know that is from Sun... and not from a lamp, or campfire???
or
words of other people -- BUT, HOW they can know that that people do not lie to them... or that some other people LIE to that people... and so forth???
That is... what RELIGION based on -- people just keep telling each nother something, they claim being FACT... because some other people have had tell em about it before. ;-P
\\Qtard keeps tries to derp his "facts" into existence. Like a child repeating the same lies over and over.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Stopid dodge. And INCORRECT citation.
\\The citation (one word) was CORRECT. You wrote "reveaked".
Yep.
You are right.
When ONLY ONE word in quote is correct -- that is still an INCORRECT citation.
Because CORRECT citation NEED TO:
a) have ALL words precisely cited;
b) be correctly atributed AKA have correct context. ;-)
\\When I point out one of your claims is "unproved"
Ehhh???
And when was last time when you said that my some claim is "unproved"??? And asked, politely, to give more evidances and logical beef to it? Ahh????
And not that it is "unseen" or "moronic".
Remind me, please.
\\Strawman. I give evidence. I provide facts. It is Qtard who believes his dislike proves claims he makes are factual.
Ehhh??? Where???
Like in this paragraph???
Where you franticly stating that "It is Qtard who believes"... without ANY quotes even. Correct or incorrect.
WHERE is that "evidances" you claim "I give evidence."???
WHERE is that "facts" you claim "I provide facts."???
While even how it formulated -- "his dislike proves claims he makes are factual" -- is deeply moronic.
Where is ANY LOGIC in it???
The more I "dislike" it being fact THE MORE I still claim they are "factual"???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Such a hilarity. Only brain of religious bonker can produce. ;-P
\\You deny being a raper of MANY men, yes? I say (as per YOUR qtarded logic) your denial confirms your raping-of-men proclivities.
And why so?
Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion?
Nah.
You can't. ;-P
\\You baselessly accused me of being a "religious bonker". Without ever providing any proof to back up your claim.
But... your own words prove it.
Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
The sun DOES exist. Evidence that Barack Obama colluded with Russia (your allegation) does NOT. You are attempting to derail the conversation (with this BS about the sun and a blind man) to dodge the fact that you never provided any evidence to back up your allegations. You won't because you can't.
ReplyDeleteRe, "when was last time when you said that my some claim is unproved?"... Right now. I JUST did. Re your lies about Barack Obama.
Qtard: WHERE is that "evidances" you claim... WHERE is that "facts" you claim...
For every conversation we have ever had I'm supposed to go back and point out were I gave evidence and facts? Go f*ck yourself. Or use Ctrl+F, asshole. You know I have done this. You just call my facts and evidence "garbage" or "demn propaganda".
Qtard: Where is ANY LOGIC in it???
There is zero logic in it. Why you do it. You are logic adverse.
Qtard: Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion? Nah. You can't.
I can. Same way you concluded I am a "religious bigot". No facts at all. You said my denials were proof. Qtard denies raping many men same way an alcoholic denies being a drunk.
Qtard: your own words prove it.
What words OF MINE prove I am a religious bigot? None I have ever written that Qtard could quote. Why he hasn't. There are none.
Qtard: Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
Where??? Your delusions don't count.
\\The sun DOES exist.
ReplyDeleteCongrats admitting that FACT!!! :-)))))))))))))))))
\\Evidence that Barack Obama colluded with Russia (your allegation) does NOT.
Of course not. That is FAKE concocted by you on the whim. Your loosy try to strawman what I did not said.
My claim was that Obama used SAME techniques of influence of people to vote for him. As later dRump did.
But in case of dRump, your Demns tryed to criminalise it. By calling it "collusion".
That's all.
Or, for at lease that is how it look like from afar. To a foreigner. ;-P
\\You are attempting to derail the conversation (with this BS about the sun and a blind man) to dodge the fact that you never provided any evidence to back up your allegations. You won't because you can't.
More like... I don't care.
To provide facts to a such blind to a fact religious bonker who pnly "believe in facts" -- means, he believes only in THAT "facts" it likes.
That would be non=productive. Like "feeding swines with a pearls", so to say.
\\Re, "when was last time when you said that my some claim is unproved?"... Right now. I JUST did. Re your lies about Barack Obama.
Yap.
You concocted some strawmaning. Again. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\For every conversation we have ever had I'm supposed to go back and point out were I gave evidence and facts? Go f*ck yourself. Or use Ctrl+F, asshole. You know I have done this.
Naah. I don't.
You mangling my and your own words -- so often, that I could not be sure.
Well... you earlier words containe something, anything factual SO DAMN rarely... so I do not see a point to Ctrl-Fing it. What for? To dig out MOAR of your garbage thoughts??? But you producing em non-stop. There just no need to dig that pile of thought manure. As it pretty much the same smelly slimy BS everywhere. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\You just call my facts and evidence "garbage" or "demn propaganda".
Of course. Cause they are. Most of the time.
Here... when you stated open and obviopus, self-evidant FACT about Sun -- I properly congratualted, to such a rare occurance. ;-P
But that is damn rare thing to behold.
.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: Where is ANY LOGIC in it???
\\There is zero logic in it.
I'm glad you admitted that. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Can you show a logical chain of inferences of how you came to that conclusion? Nah. You can't.
\\I can.
Then... do it.
But, naah. You will not.
Because with yopur miserly brain capabilities -- that is freakingly impossible.
You still not learned DEFINITION OF WHAT FACT is, even. ;-P
\\Same way you concluded I am a "religious bigot". No facts at all.
Your own admission "I believe in facts" is not a fact??? How come???
I'll double-check it.
Was it openly stated? Yes, and everyone can check it for themself. CHECKED.
Was it ovvious and self-evidant? Yes, it was stated directly as I quote "I believe in facts"... and franticly repeated many times. Conmfirmed after I asked additional question. CHECKED.
Was it ref to Reality? Yes, we are here in this blog, which is part of Reality itself. And that is open fact to anyone... well, with access to the Internet. CHECKED.
PERFECT MATCH!
You have said "I believe in facts" and that is -- exactly what infested with religious bonkerism would said. PROVED. ;-P
\\You said my denials were proof. Qtard denies raping many men same way an alcoholic denies being a drunk.
Little problem here.
That is only YOUR words about my denial. Your strawmaning.
While I... ALWAYS give PRECISELY CORRECT factual quotes which demonstrate your state of denial. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So... continue-continue, demonstrating what a religious bigot and lying-denying hypocrite you are. ;-P
\\Qtard: your own words prove it.
\\What words OF MINE prove I am a religious bigot? None I have ever written that Qtard could quote. Why he hasn't. There are none.
You said "I believe in fact". ;-P
Do you trying to say you did not? :-))))))))))))))))
But, you repeated it so many times.
\\Qtard: Like... just here, just in the next excerpt above this one.
\\Where??? Your delusions don't count.
Yeah... as self-proclaimed "bekliever in facts" AKA Religious Bonker -- you call facts you don't like delusions.
Predictable.
That is EXACTLY what religious bonker would do.
PERFECT MATCH! AGAIN!!! :-))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Of course not. That is FAKE concocted by you on the whim. Your loosy try to strawman what I did not said. My claim was that Obama used SAME techniques of influence of people to vote for him. As later dRump did.
ReplyDeleteI "concocted" nothing. YOU said tRump used "same techniques" as Obama. This was during a discussion re tRump's campaign manager passing internal polling data to a Russian agent so Russia could use that data to micro-target Facebook ads. Barack Obama did NOT do this.
Qtard: You have said "I believe in facts" and that is -- exactly what infested with religious bonkerism would said. PROVED.
No. NOT proved. ALL you proved is that I wrote that I believe in facts. The second half of that statement is false.
Qtard: ...as self-proclaimed "bekliever in facts" AKA Religious Bonker -- you call facts you don't like delusions.
I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions.
Qtard: That is EXACTLY what religious bonker would do. PERFECT MATCH! AGAIN!!!
So Qtard is a "religious bonker". PROVEN.
\\Qtard: That is EXACTLY what religious bonker would do. PERFECT MATCH! AGAIN!!!
ReplyDelete\\So Qtard is a "religious bonker". PROVEN.
Yep.
Derpy just showed HOW MUCH religious bonker he is -- with his desire to ignore even closest to his eyes facts.
Like commenting to a quote he did... with some absolutely not based on logic or facts claims -- which is often.
But now... EVEN absolutely unrelated.
With only hope that sheer power of his "make believe" AKA "I believe in facts" -- and it will make it factual truth. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions.
So???
Can you confirm that?
That you have opened your eyes to The Truth, and ready to throw into garbage that false belief???
To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"?
Cause... I doubt it.
\\No. NOT proved. ALL you proved is that I wrote that I believe in facts. The second half of that statement is false.
What?
You do not know, do not believe that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?
Cause...
"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements[1]—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacredness,[5] faith,[6] and a supernatural being or beings.[7]
Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, matrimonial and funerary services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance or public service. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred texts, symbols and holy places, that primarily aim to give life meaning."
See.
Religion is complex thing.
But even if marginally -- you behavior show such traits.
How you showing some definitely religious behavior and looks like following some narrative.
\\ This was during a discussion re tRump's campaign manager passing internal polling data to a Russian agent so Russia could use that data to micro-target Facebook ads. Barack Obama did NOT do this.
Do you know and can show FACTS of first one?
And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama?
Who have had such a cosy relations with liliPut?
Like own liliPut's words how Obama loathed need to go trough election cycle, to acqure power to give some help to his dear friend liliPut? ;-P
"To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"? Cause... I doubt it"... You are right to doubt. Because there were no errors in my truthfull comment. I will never admit that it is erroneous and untrue to believe facts.
ReplyDelete"//I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions. // So??? Can you confirm that?"... YOU made the allegation. I am innocent until proven guilty. It is your obligation to confirm.
"You do not know ... that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?"... I *do* know this. Why your allegations are so absurd.
"Do you know and can show FACTS of first one?"... Yes.
"And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama?"... YOU made the allegation. I asked you for evidence to prove YOUR claim. Qtard demands I provide evidence for my allegations -- also evidence his allegations are not true? Do your own research, asshole.
\\"To admit that that was errorneous and untrue, to say "I believe in facts"? Cause... I doubt it"... You are right to doubt. Because there were no errors in my truthfull comment. I will never admit that it is erroneous and untrue to believe facts.
ReplyDeleteBut that is the same as to say that you are religious bonker.
But you keep opposing it.
Self-contradictory.
You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
But will oppose a definition suiting it. :-)))))))))))))))))
That is religious bonkerism as it is. ;-P
Like among MAGAturds. Who behave like "deplorables"... but do not like and strongly oppose being called "deplorables". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\"//I do not "beklieve" in facts. I have never called facts I don't like delusions. // So??? Can you confirm that?"... YOU made the allegation. I am innocent until proven guilty. It is your obligation to confirm.
But???
You confirmed it in paragraph above. ;-P
That you are STILL selfproud reloigious bonker who "believes in facts". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
So... what else I need to confirm here???
I thought that you throwed aside that false faith... but seems like you not.
\\"You do not know ... that religious people do believe in some bogus and untrue things??? Believe in sheer nonsense?"... I *do* know this. Why your allegations are so absurd.
Well.
That is natural too.
Cause religious people ALSO call it absurd -- when contradictions of their faith showed to them.
That mean that that can be ONLY yet one confirmation of you being religious bonker. ;-)
Only thing I dislike -- when people trying to feed me counter-factual BS. And thing that opposite to a Truth.
\\"Do you know and can show FACTS of first one?"... Yes.
Then... show em.
That link... that is just "somebody-somebody who saying something-something", didn't you forget it?
\\"And know for sure that there was nothing like that in case of 0-bama?"... YOU made the allegation. I asked you for evidence to prove YOUR claim. Qtard demands I provide evidence for my allegations -- also evidence his allegations are not true? Do your own research, asshole.
Like you did any researches about dRump.
Naah. You just assumed that he is guilty, cause you don't like him.
Cause he is your political opponent.
Cause political propaganda told you that. ;-P
And.
I am... foreigner. Who do not listen for your political propaganda.
Neither from Rep nor your Demn side.
And... don't care about your inner political brawls.
Give me FACTS... or hit the road, Jack ;-P
You will not have neither support nor loathing of your missive by political reasons from me.
Qtard: You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
ReplyDeleteThe above is Qtard's admission that (to him) facts are "non-sensical BS". CORRECT citation.
Qtard: Cause religious people ALSO call it absurd -- when contradictions of their faith showed to them.
IDK why you keep derping about religion. I have yet to bring up the topic of religion or faith with you. Faith is belief without proof, btw. My belief in facts is contingent on the facts being proven. My belief in facts is not faith-based.
Qtard: Like you did any researches about dRump. Naah. You just assumed that he is guilty, cause you don't like him.
Wrong. I did a lot of research. Don't bother asking me what it is either. I not going to waste my time telling you for the 20th time. You are NOT INTERESTED in facts.
\\Qtard: You are proud to declare believeing in some non-sensical BS.
ReplyDelete\\The above is Qtard's admission that (to him) facts are "non-sensical BS". CORRECT citation.
Non-factual. Yawn.
"Beliving in facts" -- that is meaningless non-sensical BS. And it stated properly there.
Otherwise... YOU could give CORRECT, COMPLETE quote.
But you can't.
Because you are naugty hypocrite and gaslighter, who trying to bend meaning of words, to "win an argument".
Because you ARE idiotic u.u.r.b. who cannot discuss things properly.
Because that is ONLY way you can support a conversation.
Because of not enough gray matter inside your scull.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\IDK why you keep derping about religion. I have yet to bring up the topic of religion or faith with you.
YOU
have said "I belive in facts".
And continue claiming.
And trying to "prove" that non-sensical notion.
\\Faith is belief without proof, btw.
Yap.
You exactly right.
And you "I belive in facts" -- exactly like that. ;-P
Like, for example, you could PROVE that you "belive in facts"????
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
How it could be different??? From not beliving???
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Like... religious people do many thing, to try to prove that they beliving.
Like... loudly proclaiming, that they believe. They trying to prozelite it.
THE SAME what YOU do. ;-P
\\My belief in facts is contingent on the facts being proven.
YET one non-sensical BS.
Facts -- cannot be "proven".
Facts -- just is.
One can only POINT to em directly.
Like "see, Sun is rising".
HOW it can be done ANY OTHER WAY -- feel yourself free to explain. ;-P
\\My belief in facts is not faith-based.
All things which are like "belief in ***" ARE faith-based. Ipso definition.
But you can try to disprove it. ;-P
Anyone. Anytime. When saying "I believe in" -- declaring his faith.
\\Wrong. I did a lot of research.
To prove that dRumnp is guilty?
Naah.
That way you'd find ONLY "facts" that would prove him guilty.
Confirmation bias. ;-P
\\You are NOT INTERESTED in facts.
Yap.
You gotcha.
Cause facts are too primitive and obvious.
Like... what could be interesting in fact that Sun have risen this morning too????
What's so new in it? Necause to be interesting -- it need to be something new.
Top be interested in things that happan again and again, again and again... that's possible for imbeciles, maybe.
But normal person, with intact brain. Intelligent and inquiring.
Freakingly CANNOT feel interest for such boring things. ;-P
Derpy Derpy Doo???
ReplyDelete