Wrong. We have evidence in the form of your posts here which illustrate a certain type of personality colloquially referred to as "twit." We also have abundant evidence that you are a liar (see page 620, post #12400). We have no evidence that you are white, other than your tenuous claim to be so. But in any case, our analysis based on the evidence we have is that black people shove you around on the streets and call you names because you are a twit and not because you are allegedly white. We have met the preponderance of the evidence standard to support our conclusion. This issue will not be revisited unless you come up with new and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, you have been presented with verified, uncontroverted data of mental retardation rates in your favorite states. You have attempted to qualify, question and deny the facts and data. You have failed in that endeavor. The mental retardation data stands.
Your response relies on a mix of more ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of evidence, and a false sense of authority.
No. No, it does not. My response is fact based, including proper presentation of evidence, and abundant authority.
First, claiming that someone's posts prove their personality as a "twit" is purely subjective and not evidence in any meaningful sense—it's an insult dressed up as analysis.
No, it is not subjective. It is an objective standard that you have met. It is further corroborated by the black people shoving you around on the streets and calling you names because they believe you have met the twit standard as well.
Second, referencing a non-existent “page 620, post #12400” as proof of lying is an attempt to sound official while providing no verifiable data.
The referenced page and post exists. It is official. It is verifiable. You are a liar (again). You have now lied about lying. That is advanced twit behavior, like stage 4 or something. There are two other guys here that do that - lie about lying. We all know who they are. Sadly, you will now be associated with them.
Third, the insistence that racial identity is “tenuous” while simultaneously asserting certainty about personality and behavior is a contradiction, revealing a biased and selective approach to evidence.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Racial identity is not tenuous, except in rare cases. YOUR claim to be white, on the other hand, is tenuous. We are skeptical that you are white and you have provided no evidence to support your tenuous claim.
Regarding the so-called "verified, uncontroverted data" about mental retardation rates, the claim is void. No reputable source compiles and ranks states in the manner presented, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to produce legitimate sources, as you have, again, failed to do.
Wrong. You are mistaken and making representations about thing of which you are ignorant. There is at least one reputable source that compiles and ranks states according to mental retardation rates. I have not been asked what that source is, so I can't have failed to provide it. If asked, I will provide the easily located reputable source. The data presented is verified, certified, adjudicated, and uncontroverted. You will have to find other ways to reconcile yourself to reality other than attacking me, the certified messenger of uncontroverted facts.
The response also engages in a classic tactic of declaring an issue "settled" to avoid scrutiny, despite failing to present actual verifiable data. Overall, this argument substitutes mockery for logic and bluster for evidence, making it more of a rhetorical rant than a serious engagement with facts.
The issue is closed. Final data has been presented (see above). You have been DENIED.
In other words, typical, name calling liberal.
I am not a liberal. You are back to lying, name calling and engaging in slander, like you did in post #12400 on page 620. This is why you will NEVER see The Kingdom of Christ. You are DENIED.
So? Who says I care about Sydney. Throw another shrimp on the barbie, mate.
Besides, economic policy is a balancing act, and dismissing tariffs outright without considering their strategic advantages is just as misleading as overstating their benefits.
Got any other stereotypes or is Crocodile Dundee the only thing you remember from your school syllabus?
The leading Australian paper and others around the world is reporting on polls that ought to be known by you, except Trump doesn't want you to.
Of course there are strategic advantages to tariffs besides hurting your economy and your wallet. Pi$ing off allies, and your alliaes making new alliances. Long term it is good for us, for Canada etc. Already got a $6.5B radar tech order from Canada. The cancellation of our AUKUS submarine deal should be next.
Invest in a trailer now...or maybe you are in one, if so, get a tent just in case
Or, I just don't care about Sydney. Thanks anyway, mate.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Your response relies on a mix of more ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of evidence, and a false sense of authority.
No. No, it does not. My response is fact based, including proper presentation of evidence, and abundant authority.
First, claiming that someone's posts prove their personality as a "twit" is purely subjective and not evidence in any meaningful sense—it's an insult dressed up as analysis.
No, it is not subjective. It is an objective standard that you have met. It is further corroborated by the black people shoving you around on the streets and calling you names because they believe you have met the twit standard as well.
Second, referencing a non-existent “page 620, post #12400” as proof of lying is an attempt to sound official while providing no verifiable data.
The referenced page and post exists. It is official. It is verifiable. You are a liar (again). You have now lied about lying. That is advanced twit behavior, like stage 4 or something. There are two other guys here that do that - lie about lying. We all know who they are. Sadly, you will now be associated with them.
Third, the insistence that racial identity is “tenuous” while simultaneously asserting certainty about personality and behavior is a contradiction, revealing a biased and selective approach to evidence.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Racial identity is not tenuous, except in rare cases. YOUR claim to be white, on the other hand, is tenuous. We are skeptical that you are white and you have provided no evidence to support your tenuous claim.
Regarding the so-called "verified, uncontroverted data" about mental retardation rates, the claim is void. No reputable source compiles and ranks states in the manner presented, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to produce legitimate sources, as you have, again, failed to do.
Wrong. You are mistaken and making representations about thing of which you are ignorant. There is at least one reputable source that compiles and ranks states according to mental retardation rates. I have not been asked what that source is, so I can't have failed to provide it. If asked, I will provide the easily located reputable source. The data presented is verified, certified, adjudicated, and uncontroverted. You will have to find other ways to reconcile yourself to reality other than attacking me, the certified messenger of uncontroverted facts.
The response also engages in a classic tactic of declaring an issue "settled" to avoid scrutiny, despite failing to present actual verifiable data. Overall, this argument substitutes mockery for logic and bluster for evidence, making it more of a rhetorical rant than a serious engagement with facts.
The issue is closed. Final data has been presented (see above). You have been DENIED.
In other words, typical, name calling liberal.
I am not a liberal. You are back to lying, name calling and engaging in slander, like you did in post #12400 on page 620. This is why you will NEVER see The Kingdom of Christ. You are DENIED.
Haha. You're unhinged. Most of these words are meaningless. You're doing the same thing, again.
If you aren't a liberal, you're sure acting like one.
It's also very weird you are telling me I am denied the "Kingdom of Christ." Just oddball stuff. It's pretty sacrilegious to tell someone they are denied the Kingdom of Heaven especially when viewed through the lens of Christian teachings.
We are called to show love, not condemnation: In Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus cautions against judgment: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Telling someone they are "denied" the Kingdom of Heaven contradicts the message of love, redemption, and grace central to the Christian faith. It’s important to remember that only God can judge the hearts of individuals, and He desires that all come to Him in faith.
Haha. You're unhinged. Most of these words are meaningless. You're doing the same thing, again.
If you aren't a liberal, you're sure acting like one.
It's also very weird you are telling me I am denied the "Kingdom of Christ." Just oddball stuff. It's pretty sacrilegious to tell someone they are denied the Kingdom of Heaven especially when viewed through the lens of Christian teachings.
We are called to show love, not condemnation: In Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus cautions against judgment: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Telling someone they are "denied" the Kingdom of Heaven contradicts the message of love, redemption, and grace central to the Christian faith. It’s important to remember that only God can judge the hearts of individuals, and He desires that all come to Him in faith.
Lol.
Lolz!
Runkin with yet another victim.
BTW, what is with these Gnarly posts of about 5 paragraphs each? Nobody is reading that sh!t. We don’t need novels here.
Can you please ask ChatGPT for the shorter response as a courtesy to the board?
Looks like ETTD has some stiff competition with EMTD.
People hate Mush and yet Mush thinks everyone loves him. Will be interesting to see if the smart people around Trump start pushing Trump to get rid of Mush.
Thanks President Musk for wasting your time and money and still losing in Wisconsin.Just tell addled assistant Trump your guy won and he won’t know any different, sad.
Thanks President Musk for wasting your time and money and still losing in Wisconsin.Just tell addled assistant Trump your guy won and he won’t know any different, sad.
Thanks President Musk for wasting your time and money and still losing in Wisconsin.Just tell addled assistant Trump your guy won and he won’t know any different, sad.
It was however a clean sweep for the GOP in FL tonight.
Overall for the GOP, it was 3 for 4 tonight. Although we lost the WI Supreme Court seat, we did win on voter ID.
Enjoy your 1 for 4 showing.
MAGA!
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
