Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

And... wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Not true. Billy Graham tried to love everyone.

You will find that Billy Graham had very little to say about the matter. He kept to traditional Christian doctrine, which teaches that homosexuality is a sin. But Billy Graham recognized that we are all sinners and that a homosexual is no worse or better than anyone else. He preached about loving others thousands of times, but he never delivered a sermon against homosexuals.

There was every temptation to go the route of his son and rail against homosexuality in order to gin up a political base. But as I said, Billy Graham had a higher purpose.

Plus he had a history of bigotry.

He had a history of preaching the gospel of love to all nations of the world.

Fat hurts wrote:

And... wrote:

Plus he had a history of bigotry.

He had a history of preaching the gospel of love to all nations of the world.

You don't know much about the guy, do you.

philo filo wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

The judges were looking for "Strawman Fallacy".

That is CORRECT!

I would argue it's a trivial objection (see also : splitting hairs) although it could be also a straw man. The objection in question was that I presented in quotes a statement that was never actually quoted by anyone. This was technically true, and the quotes of the latter part of the equivocation were inserted by me as a stylistic choice. So the objection was to a part of the argument that simply and exclusively related to my stylistic choice rather than the equivocation itself.

Trust me on this, I'm a Doctor of Philosophy

One who knows wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. Go look it up (not Urban Dictionary). "Shoo-in" is correct.

"Shoe-in" is an acceptable usage. In some terms it is the correct usage.

shoo-in

Racket wrote:

philo filo wrote:

That is CORRECT!

I would argue it's a trivial objection (see also : splitting hairs) although it could be also a straw man. The objection in question was that I presented in quotes a statement that was never actually quoted by anyone. This was technically true, and the quotes of the latter part of the equivocation were inserted by me as a stylistic choice. So the objection was to a part of the argument that simply and exclusively related to my stylistic choice rather than the equivocation itself.

Trust me on this, I'm a Doctor of Philosophy

...and an awesome barista!

( argument from authority, btw)

Racket wrote:

philo filo wrote:

That is CORRECT!

I would argue it's a trivial objection (see also : splitting hairs) although it could be also a straw man. The objection in question was that I presented in quotes a statement that was never actually quoted by anyone. This was technically true, and the quotes of the latter part of the equivocation were inserted by me as a stylistic choice. So the objection was to a part of the argument that simply and exclusively related to my stylistic choice rather than the equivocation itself.

Trust me on this, I'm a Doctor of Philosophy

Would you characterize that as an appeal to authority?

What the What? wrote:

Racket wrote:

I would argue it's a trivial objection (see also : splitting hairs) although it could be also a straw man. The objection in question was that I presented in quotes a statement that was never actually quoted by anyone. This was technically true, and the quotes of the latter part of the equivocation were inserted by me as a stylistic choice. So the objection was to a part of the argument that simply and exclusively related to my stylistic choice rather than the equivocation itself.

Trust me on this, I'm a Doctor of Philosophy

Would you characterize that as an appeal to authority?

Well done!

And the other poster got it, except I'm not a barista. My degree is in a real discipline and not gender or film studies and I have job in industry.

Racket wrote:

What the What? wrote:

Would you characterize that as an appeal to authority?

Well done!

And the other poster got it, except I'm not a barista. My degree is in a real discipline and not gender or film studies and I have job in industry.

Yes. The coffee pouring industry.

Racket wrote:

What the What? wrote:

Would you characterize that as an appeal to authority?

Well done!

And the other poster got it, except I'm not a barista. My degree is in a real discipline and not gender or film studies and I have job in industry.

Sciences, I assume?

Bill Knye wrote:

Racket wrote:

Well done!

And the other poster got it, except I'm not a barista. My degree is in a real discipline and not gender or film studies and I have job in industry.

Sciences, I assume?

Math - the best kind of science.

Maria Butina gets 18 months for that Russian influence trumpers deny.

Big Shoes wrote:

One who knows wrote:

"Shoe-in" is an acceptable usage. In some terms it is the correct usage.

shoo-in

Incorrect usage, *dork*. The origin of shoo-in is to win by illegal means. It cannot mean win by legal means. The two are opposites. Dictionaries have simply given up and allow the idiots who misuse the term to give it an opposite meaning.

Look up the original meaning of the word dork. It means penis, you dork.

jesseriley wrote:

Maria Butina gets 18 months for that Russian influence trumpers deny.

Because . . .

Maria Butina Claimed Influence Over Trump Cabinet Pick

Mayor Dumdumblassio strikes again. Is he going to ban pizza next? Do you agree with this nonsense, agip?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/rare.us/rare-life/food-and-drink/nyc-bans-meat-to-improve-climate/amp/

And they’ve got her boyfriend Erickson, too, it seems. Ironically, if trump had been dumped or resigned earlier, lots of scum wouldn’t have been prosecuted. But all this stonewalling gives them time to use all the evidence they’ve acquired. Of course trump is letting them take the fall for him, just like Nixon.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

What about his explicit and practiced desire to keep women in the kitchen, including his own wife and daughters?

I don't know of any sermons about that either.

Look up his article titled "Jesus and the liberated woman," an article he wrote for Ladies Home Journal. It is not good.

It is time for Trumpers to flip-flop en-masse. . . . . AGAIN!

Anti-vacccer, Trump, has now decided vaccines not bigly bad -- little Baron did not lose IQ due to vaccines. Vaccines are now good.

"They have to get the shots. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots," Trump told CNN's Joe Johns.

don't be an idiot wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't know of any sermons about that either.

Look up his article titled "Jesus and the liberated woman," an article he wrote for Ladies Home Journal. It is not good.

Can't find it. Do you have a link?

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Mayor Dumdumblassio strikes again. Is he going to ban pizza next? Do you agree with this nonsense, agip?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/rare.us/rare-life/food-and-drink/nyc-bans-meat-to-improve-climate/amp/

Proof that Rigged will believe anything.

What shape is the earth in your world?