Winners only.

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Are you ready for your AI God?

The solution to online abuse? AI needs human intelligence | World Economic Forum

Are you going to log out and cancel your internet service?

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

So like Thx, you think that what you post does not have to meet a burden of proof.

Your reputation is so strong that your claims should just be accepted as fact.

Pretty fekking entitled, huh?

the fact they pled the 5th can easily be confirmed.

I'm not going to scour the internet for even a minute to do something you can do your damn self. all your other questions surrounding their party affiliation, their trials, their favorite color, pronouns, hobbies, and interests is all yours to figure out for yourself little buddy

your insistent need for everyone to provide every fine detail at your request is ridiculous.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Are you going to log out and cancel your internet service?

Did Neo stop going into the matrix? Do you think just avoiding the internet is going to keep you safe from AI?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

the fact they pled the 5th can easily be confirmed.

I'm not going to scour the internet for even a minute to do something you can do your damn self. all your other questions surrounding their party affiliation, their trials, their favorite color, pronouns, hobbies, and interests is all yours to figure out for yourself little buddy

your insistent need for everyone to provide every fine detail at your request is ridiculous.

You brought them up specifically to point out Democrats who pleaded the 5th. They were not politicians in office, so there is no assumption that they are Democrats.

Were you just trying to point out that Trump is not a hypocrite for pleading the 5th, simply because other people in history have pleaded the 5th? That would be a pretty weird argument.

Kind of like Thx saying the PACT bill shouldn't pass b/c he had a few relatives who didn't get hurt by Agent Orange, or burn bits, or toxic dumping at Camp Lejeune.
Or maybe saying Trump is guilty, because Nixon was guilty...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Nope. If he claims it and you call him a liar, he kicks your azz, right?
Isn’t t that how you think burden of proof works?

With your version of burden of proof, he says you are the ******, YOU go to jail with no proof needed, and you get to prove him wrong.

Another corner you’ve painted yourself into.
That’s a lot of paint jobs you’ve ruined.

Do you think if you and Bobby keep spinning it around it will make me change my mind or something? You two live in a different world than the rest of us apparently. You think you can just call anyone a liar you like with no repercussions. You think everyone has to prove everything to you. This is how you think the wold works. Nobody has to prove a damn thing to you. If they prove something to you it's because they chose to do so. Nobody owes you proof of a damn thing.

If the IRS comes to you Rob and says "We think you committed tax fraud" You going to call them liars and conspiracy theorist OR are you going to prove you didn't commit tax fraud?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Do you think if you and Bobby keep spinning it around it will make me change my mind or something? You two live in a different world than the rest of us apparently. You think you can just call anyone a liar you like with no repercussions. You think everyone has to prove everything to you. This is how you think the wold works. Nobody has to prove a damn thing to you. If they prove something to you it's because they chose to do so. Nobody owes you proof of a damn thing.

If the IRS comes to you Rob and says "We think you committed tax fraud" You going to call them liars and conspiracy theorist OR are you going to prove you didn't commit tax fraud?

Spin what? YOU are the one who thinks the laws of logic, math, the English language, science, and now the burden of proof don't apply to you.
What happened to you as a kid that gives you such grandiose feelings of entitlement?

Your IRS analogy falls flat on its face (like all your other arguments).
The IRS doesn't just show up and say "we think you committed tax fraud". They provide a whole series of records and evidence to support the claim. It's then my job to prove that all of their info is incorrect.

YOU make the claim of Democrats "released COVID" in order to effect the election of Biden by "mail-in vote" fraud, but you can't produce a SHRED of evidence to support your claim.
That means the claim is baseless, hollow, empty, unfounded, unsubstantiated, groundless, conjectural, and it's YOUR job to prove it.

Ands we're back to the whole "burden of proof" concept that you think for some reason doesn't apply to your entitled self.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

You brought them up specifically to point out Democrats who pleaded the 5th. They were not politicians in office, so there is no assumption that they are Democrats.

Were you just trying to point out that Trump is not a hypocrite for pleading the 5th, simply because other people in history have pleaded the 5th? That would be a pretty weird argument.

Kind of like Thx saying the PACT bill shouldn't pass b/c he had a few relatives who didn't get hurt by Agent Orange, or burn bits, or toxic dumping at Camp Lejeune.
Or maybe saying Trump is guilty, because Nixon was guilty...

All of those people were democrats and appointed to a government office by Obama's administration. If you just want to write it off and say "no they weren't" then fine. No reason so discuss it, denial seems to work well for some.

Trump contradicts himself all the time. I was never defending him against being a hypocrite, but in his situation where he has already been the target of FBI witch hunts, i would plead the 5th too . . . . just to make their jobs harder if anything.

plus, Bobbytoodumb was trying to make it sound like Trump is the only person on earth to plead the 5th during an FBI probe and the point of my post was to show him his talking out his ***. Obama claimed to have the most transparent administration ever and these people pled the 5th under his administration and was appointed to those positions under his administration.

if he or you dont know who or what they did. . then oh well... im not interested in explaining

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Your IRS analogy falls flat on its face (like all your other arguments).
The IRS doesn't just show up and say "we think you committed tax fraud". They provide a whole series of records and evidence to support the claim. It's then my job to prove that all of their info is incorrect.

Wow Rob.... WOW. What a fantasy world you have in your head. WOW. I give you a hypothetical example and you argue it like it is literal.

Hey Rob.... is there an argument you think you can't win? lol

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

All of those people were democrats and appointed to a government office by Obama's administration. If you just want to write it off and say "no they weren't" then fine. No reason so discuss it, denial seems to work well for some.

Trump contradicts himself all the time. I was never defending him against being a hypocrite, but in his situation where he has already been the target of FBI witch hunts, i would plead the 5th too . . . . just to make their jobs harder if anything.

plus, Bobbytoodumb was trying to make it sound like Trump is the only person on earth to plead the 5th during an FBI probe and the point of my post was to show him his talking out his ***. Obama claimed to have the most transparent administration ever and these people pled the 5th under his administration and was appointed to those positions under his administration.

if he or you dont know who or what they did. . then oh well... im not interested in explaining

I write off nothing, I just ask for proof of claims. If you know they are Democrats, just share your source of that info. Pretty simple.
If you just THINK they are Democrats, then say that. Pretty simple.

Bobby was pointing out the very public statements Trump has made against pleading the 5th. Proof was provided of his ''anti 5th" ramblings.
Trump then did so. For him to suddenly decide the 5th is "OK for me but not for thee" is hypocritical and disingenuous. What other rules does he think apply to us "common folks" but not his royal highness?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I write off nothing, I just ask for proof of claims. If you know they are Democrats, just share your source of that info. Pretty simple.
If you just THINK they are Democrats, then say that. Pretty simple.

Bobby was pointing out the very public statements Trump has made against pleading the 5th. Proof was provided of his ''anti 5th" ramblings.
Trump then did so. For him to suddenly decide the 5th is "OK for me but not for thee" is hypocritical and disingenuous. What other rules does he think apply to us "common folks" but not his royal highness?

People change their minds... Democrats do it all the time... we call them lies when they do it.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Interesting

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Wow Rob.... WOW. What a fantasy world you have in your head. WOW. I give you a hypothetical example and you argue it like it is literal.

Hey Rob.... is there an argument you think you can't win? lol

If you want to use a hypothetical to support your weakaass argument, you should use one that doesn't fall flat on its face immediately, you dummy.

We're specifically talking about the concept of not having to prove a claim, and you provide a hypothetical where the initial claim would ALWAYS come with proof that would then have to be disproved.

Sorry kid, there is nothing you can argue that is going to change the concept of the burden of proof to tilt things to your line of thinking. Just like percentages, averages, energy prices, et al.
You can try to sin it any way you want, but those things just don't change.
You may hate the concept, but the burden of proof will not change.

Since you obviously didn't read it the last time, I'll share again:
"Burden Of proof
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

In other words "back it up, or it's automatically bullshit".

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Interesting

View attachment 41467

Who the F is he "calling on"? The warrant is given to the party at the place the search happens.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

I write off nothing, I just ask for proof of claims. If you know they are Democrats, just share your source of that info. Pretty simple.
If you just THINK they are Democrats, then say that. Pretty simple.

Bobby was pointing out the very public statements Trump has made against pleading the 5th. Proof was provided of his ''anti 5th" ramblings.
Trump then did so. For him to suddenly decide the 5th is "OK for me but not for thee" is hypocritical and disingenuous. What other rules does he think apply to us "common folks" but not his royal highness?

every case has its own set of circumstances

pleading the 5th is probably the best move Trump can make right now. hes running for re-election... why take the chance on even accidentally saying something that the FBI can fabricate a conviction from?

id be that hypocrite too in the situation.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

every case has its own set of circumstances

pleading the 5th is probably the best move Trump can make right now. hes running for re-election... why take the chance on even accidentally saying something that the FBI can fabricate a conviction from?

id be that hypocrite too in the situation.

I don't like or trust hypocrites in the least.