Senior Member
4+ years of Russia, Russia, Russia broke any remaining trust people had in our government.Originally Posted by Solkern
"Trust us this time" is not going to work. The fact that you still trust any of them says more about you than it does our "leaders".
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~ Marcus Aurelius“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Senior Member
Uh oh. The "Irrefutable REPORT" may turn out to be like Trump's health plan, which he kept saying for four years that he was just about to announce but never did.
Former President Donald Trump's promised press conference to refute the allegations in the indictment handed up by the Fulton County DA's Office is now very much in doubt, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Sources tell ABC News that Trump's legal advisors have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems and some of his attorneys have advised him to cancel it.
More...
Senior Member
Seriously, take a debate course.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Click the link above to see how much you owe the government.
"Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
-Superracist, Joe Biden
“If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you disagree with, and even hate for what they stand for, then you don’t believe in free speech.”
-My favorite liberal
Senior Member
Just so you don't think I'm picking on you because you are colossally stupid, here is AI's analysis of this post.
The argument you've presented highlights several issues and fallacies. Let's break down the problems with the argument step by step:
1. **Straw Man Fallacy:** The argument seems to oversimplify the stances of Republicans and Democrats. It might not accurately represent the full range of opinions within these parties.
2. **Cherry-Picking:** The argument cherry-picks statements from Republicans and Democrats to create a false equivalence. It doesn't necessarily represent the nuanced positions held by individuals within these parties.
3. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the opinions of Republicans and Democrats as if they are monolithic groups, which can oversimplify the diversity of opinions within each party.
4. **Confirmation Bias:** The argument seems to focus on instances that confirm a pre-existing bias, rather than addressing a comprehensive range of opinions and arguments from both sides.
5. **False Equivalence:** The argument equates the reactions and behaviors of Republicans and Democrats without acknowledging the differences in context, evidence, and individual viewpoints.
6. **Misrepresentation of Views:** The argument portrays Republicans as uniformly dismissing evidence against Trump and Democrats as unconditionally defending Biden. This oversimplification ignores the complexity of discussions and opinions within both parties.
7. **Causal Inference:** The argument assumes that just because some Republicans are skeptical of evidence against Trump, all Republicans must be similarly skeptical of evidence against Biden. It doesn't consider the possibility of differing motivations or justifications.
8. **Hypothetical Comparisons:** The argument draws comparisons between hypothetical scenarios involving Trump and Biden, which doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of how evidence is evaluated in legal or political contexts.
9. **False Dichotomy:** The argument sets up a false dichotomy between "knowing guilt" without direct evidence in one case and "knowing innocence" due to lack of direct evidence in another case. Legal processes and political discourse are more complex than such simplistic distinctions.
10. **Lack of Context:** The argument doesn't provide sufficient context for the specific claims against Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the impeachment processes that have taken place.
11. **Assumption of Motive:** The argument assumes that one party's actions are driven solely by a desire to protect their own, without considering other possible motives or reasoning.
12. **Comparing Apples to Oranges:** The argument compares reactions to allegations and situations that are not necessarily equivalent, as the circumstances, evidence, and legal standards can differ significantly.
In essence, the argument oversimplifies the complexities of political discourse, legal processes, and individual opinions within the two parties. It's important to approach such discussions with a willingness to consider multiple viewpoints, analyze evidence critically, and avoid painting entire groups with a broad brush.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Click the link above to see how much you owe the government.
"Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
-Superracist, Joe Biden
“If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you disagree with, and even hate for what they stand for, then you don’t believe in free speech.”
-My favorite liberal
"Russia, Russia, Russia is the tip of the iceberg. What about the Steele Dossier that was used to spy on an opponent's Presidential campaign? Or 2 impeachment farces? Or purposely false media reports for 4 years?
Or how about the biggest one I believe:
WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT CENSORED ITS CITIZENS WITH THE HELP OF SOCIAL MEDIA???
Like that is literally against the first amendment right of the People!
No real liberal would stand for that.. but the left isn't liberal or progressive at all... it's literally fascism.
And this was happening for a very long time.. well before Biden and even before Trump. Lifelong government bureaucrats have been entrenched in every fabric of our "freedom", picking winners and losers where they do not belong.
I don't want our government censoring the right OR the left.. because they have no business doing it.
Last edited by Parkbandit; 08-17-2023 at 09:12 AM.
PC RETARD HALL OF FAME
Senior Member
That is awesome, taking a computer program incapable of perceiving the difference between hyperbole and sarcasm and turning it loose on a post characterizing Republican hypocrisy. Classic. If only you had any relevance whatsoever.
I spit that hot FIYAAA!!!
ChatGPT says that you are unique from all other humans because Skynet doesn’t perceive you as a threat.
Retarded Commie
Let SHM, use his Chat AI, it’s the only way he can come up with any type of response, because he’s to retarded to do it himself. He can’t reply because it will show his own stupid hypocrisy, and we can’t have that!
He probably doesn’t even understand half of what the AI said, it contains words with four or more syllables, 2+ to many for him.
Last edited by Solkern; 08-17-2023 at 10:19 AM.
The idiot award goes to…
An hour later:
Retarded Commie
Fair enough, I can understand and respect your opinion on that!
The idiot award goes to…
An hour later:
Retarded Commie
But Seran is correct, using a chat AI program to dissect a comment full of hyperbole and hypocrisy, is just fucking retarded, and anyone attempting to use that as a basis for reasoning or a retort, is equally as retarded.
The idiot award goes to…
An hour later:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
