General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Triple 9
Styxhexenhammer666
comments

Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "Impeachment Approval Now Lower than Opposition" video.

Why would the Democrats have any reason to send the vote to the Senate when McConnell has no intention of holding a fair trial?
2
@frankmanning3815 I appreciate your honesty about Senate Republicans, but that didn't answer my question. Again, why would the Democrats send the vote to the Senate when McConnell has stated openly that he has no intention of holding a fair trial?
2
@frankmanning3815 What were they wrong about? That Trump didn't commit abuse of office or obstruction of Congress? Let me spell it out for you. According to the FEC, it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. Trump's claim is that he did nothing wrong on the Ukraine call, despite the fact that his strongest evidence of this claim is a document he claims is a full transcript of the phone call that says "not a verbatim transcript" on the first page. Even without that, it should've been obvious that it wasn't a full transcript because the phone call lasted thirty minutes and the document is four pages long, as if a thirty minute phone call could fit on four pages. But that doesn't prove Trump wasn't innocent, does it? No, he was just requesting an investigation into a crime. Except...you know...if either Joe or Hunter Biden had committed a crime, why hadn't the Ukrainian government investigated it already? Multiple Ukrainian officials have stated emphatically that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden did anything wrong. Joe didn't join the multinational effort to pressure the Ukrainian government into firing Shokin because he investigated the company where Hunter worked. If anything, it was because he wasn't investigating the company on account of being bad at his job of rooting out corruption. With that in mind, what other reason would Trump have to call for an investigation into a 2020 candidate? Further, why bring foreign aid into the equation? And if Trump believes he truly did nothing wrong, why is a summary all he's presenting? Why instruct people not to testify? Actually, don't answer any of those questions. I already know you're not overly concerned with facts anyway.
2
@frankmanning3815 The one released yesterday? The one that said on page 62 that "the House itself has long treated 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' as distinct from crimes subject to indictment"?
2
@frankmanning3815 Page 6: "President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means: (1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees. (2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record. (3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael 'Mick' Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl. " Bear in mind that one of the charges made in the second of the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was: "impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries." And that was in the article charging him with abuse of power.
2
@frankmanning3815 Wow, you are really reaching. Mueller said his findings accounted for OLC opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted. So what are you trying to insinuate? Obama did the same thing Trump is doing, but Trump shouldn't be indicted for it? Even though I already explained that the House draws a difference between impeachable and indictable crimes? The average stroke victim makes more sense than you.
2
Frank Manning Is it possible that you’re so eager to defend Trump that you make your standards for the Democrats impossible to satisfy? Actual lawyers don’t set their standards that high - otherwise, no one in politics would ever have gone to jail.
2
@frankmanning3815 This is not me saying what I think happened. This is me pointing out what I know for a fact about his court history.
2
@frankmanning3815 Again, how fucking stubborn are you? Embezzlement is, again, when a person or entity has assets entrusted lawfully but then uses them for personal gain or other unintended purposes. In the case of embezzlement, the criminal intent is the desire to take someone’s property as one's own. Trump promised the funds would be distributed to charities, but were instead used for his own campaign. Are you seriously suggesting he did that by accident? I repeat: how fucking stubborn are you?
2
@frankmanning3815 I keep explaining this to you, but you're being stubborn. Again, it was a settlement, but that doesn't change the fact that, according to the legal definition, what he did was embezzlement. The actions he admitted to were embezzlement. Do you seriously find it hard to believe a millionaire would settle a case for the sake of a less damaging outcome? If he actually shot someone on Fifth Avenue, but settled the lawsuit so the words "Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue" never appear in the court document, would you claim someone was stupid for pointing out he shot somebody? Of course you would, asshole.
1
@algorhythm4593 Still waiting for those tons of substantive material, hypocrite.
1
@frankmanning3815 I didn't miss anything. You missed the part where he used the money to buy a goddamn Tim Tebow helmet and resolve his other lawsuits. Again, go talk to a real lawyer.
1
@frankmanning3815 CHARITY FRAUD IS EMBEZZLEMENT, YOU IDIOT!
1
@frankmanning3815 Federal law prohibits a charity from involving itself in a political campaign, you fucking idiot! https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
1
@frankmanning3815 I explained what embezzlement is. I explained what they did. I explained that Trump has previously been able to avoid admitting guilt in court. It's not my fault you can't put two and two together.
1
@frankmanning3815 I didn't explain what I thought embezzlement was. Here's what I said it was: "An illegal taking of money or other property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner and without the permission or authority to do so." Here's how the Supreme Court defined embezzlement: "The fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come." So once again, you're a fucking idiot.
1
@frankmanning3815 See my comment above. "I explained what embezzlement is. I explained what they did. I explained that Trump has previously been able to avoid admitting guilt in court. It's not my fault you can't put two and two together."
1
@frankmanning3815 He likely settled so he wouldn't be.
1
@frankmanning3815 Maybe you should follow your own advice. What he did fits the legal definition of embezzlement. What you're doing is being a stubborn asshole.
1
@Genshiken2006 The IG report that said the FBI investigation wasn't politically motivated? Or is there some imaginary IG report I don't know about?
1
@Genshiken2006 You read the entire exchange, including the points I made about how what Trump did fits the legal definition of embezzlement and how he likely settled to avoid admitting guilt, and you still think there's nothing anyone can find on the guy whose inaugural committee was investigated for embezzlement? Don't kid yourself.
1
@frankmanning3815 Upon further research, I discovered that I was right and that he did settle. The lawsuit itself lists breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful related-party transactions, and failure to properly administer charitable assets (i.e. embezzlement). The Trump Foundation was indeed found to have done all of those, so try again, asshole.
1
@frankmanning3815 Get your eyes checked and read page 5, you idiot. "As a director of the Foundation, Mr. Trump owed fiduciary duties to the Foundation, pursuant to N-PCL § 717; he was a trustee of the Foundation’s charitable assets and was thereby responsible for the proper administration of these assets, pursuant to EPTL § 8-1.4. A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation. Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign."
1
@frankmanning3815 A settlement was made so he wouldn't get a conviction. And the judge who ordered the $2 million payment said Trump and the foundation had been "using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign." Again, SCOTUS defined embezzlement as "the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted." So Trump commits an act that by all legal definitions is embezzlement, but the word never appears in the settlement, so it doesn't count?
1
@frankmanning3815 EPTL § 11-1.6 states that “Every fiduciary shall keep property received as fiduciary separate from his individual property.”
1
@frankmanning3815 I said what he committed was, according to the legal definition, embezzlement. He settled the case. I showed you were wrong when you said EPT has nothing to do with embezzlement. Why are you being stubborn about this?
1
@frankmanning3815 Are you always this stubborn? According to the actions described in the settlement, what Trump did - again, per the legal definition - was embezzlement. The settlement does not magically make his actions more palatable. I already cited EPTL explaining how you're wrong. How many ways do I have to explain all of this?
1
@frankmanning3815 This isn't about sounding like embezzlement in my mind. I'm going off the law's definition. And the law's definition says that what he did was embezzlement. And again, the settlement does not magically ameliorate his actions or make him any less of a con man who had previously been investigated for embezzlement.
1
@frankmanning3815 Right, because people who commit fraud always confess to having criminal intent.
1
@frankmanning3815 In the public stipulations entered into with the attorney general, Trump, the Trump Foundation and his children made admissions of charitable waste. For instance, Trump directed the foundation to use money for charity to buy a Tim Tebow helmet for himself, a portrait of himself and to settle other lawsuits for himself. Now, embezzlement is an illegal taking of money or other property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner and without the permission or authority to do so. Trump flat out did not have permission. And in some cases, the same actions that constitute a breach of fiduciary duty are also jailable offenses (see: Elkins v. Gibson). Thus we reach the conclusion: You are an idiot. Talk to a real lawyer and see how many words you can get out before they laugh in your face.
1
@frankmanning3815 This isn't me presenting a red herring. This is me saying Trump can't win a trial through honest means, a conclusion that anyone with even the faintest sense of pattern recognition can see. You defend a con man, asshole.
1
@frankmanning3815 Do you genuinely believe having to pay $2 million by court order means you're not guilty?
1
@frankmanning3815 Do you honestly have trouble grasping the notion of a multimillionaire buying his way out of court?
1
@frankmanning3815 You seem to have a problem grasping the idea that a con man on trial for fraud can't win through honest means.
1
@frankmanning3815 Likewise. "Your honor, I find the defendant not guilty. Yes, I know he did something that would end any other public figure's political career, but what can I say? I'm kind of an idiot."
1
@frankmanning3815 It's not "muh orange man bad." If he had never done a single bad thing in his life before that settlement, you'd be right. But that's not the case, on account of him being a liar and a con man who a few years ago settled a $25 million class action lawsuit against his namesake "university" being a massive fraud. You know, like you are for defending him.
1
@frankmanning3815 How many times do I have to tell you this? I already told you his inauguration committee was investigated for embezzlement. Does it genuinely baffle you that he would settle a case so he wouldn't be charged with embezzlement?
1
@frankmanning3815 Do you believe that Hillary broke the law with the Uranium One deal despite the fact she was never charged with anything? I don't ask that to move the goalposts. I ask that because I know for a fact Styx and his subscribers have been way less concerned with evidence of wrongdoing when it comes to the Democrats and I want to make sure I'm talking to someone who's capable of being somewhat consistent.
1
@frankmanning3815 I only asked because regarding the Uranium One deal (and for that matter, the email scandal), neither Hillary nor anyone on her team was found to have committed any criminal wrongdoing. And yet countless Styx subscribers view her as the embodiment of pure evil. Not to suggest she never did anything wrong in her life, but the list of everything Trump ever did wrong is vastly longer. So again, how difficult is it for you to grasp that a multimillionaire would use his wealth to buy his way out of court?
1
@frankmanning3815 I explained why I asked. I explained what Trump did was, per the legal definition, embezzlement. I explained how he settled. How stubborn are you?
1
@frankmanning3815 Again, him settling does not magically make what he did not embezzlement.
1
@frankmanning3815 Again, what he did fit the legal definition of embezzlement. Again, he had been the subject of embezzlement investigations before. Again, you apparently have difficulty grasping that a multimillionaire would buy his way out of court. It's not a matter of what I think happened when what had already been known about him before that trial was well-documented. And as far as you're concerned, anything short of "I did it because I love crime" doesn't count as criminal intent, despite circumstantial evidence being admissible in court. And again, you're a stubborn asshole.
1
@frankmanning3815 https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=tOMnNab_PLUS_PiNjvAeFP7v54A==
1
Frank Manning Except Trump has committed real crimes. We know, for instance, that he was recently found guilty of embezzlement.
1
@frankmanning3815 How. Fucking. Hard. Is. This?! How fucking difficult is it for you to grapple with the notion of a multimillionaire using his wealth to settle a case against him committing what is, per the legal definition, embezzlement, a crime for which he had previously been the subject of investigation? How fucking stubborn are you that this is some kind of an alien concept to you?
1
@aitchisondaniel More like one out of three ain't bad.
1
@frankmanning3815 Sorry, what? Are you so stuffed up your own ass that you think it was me who made that last comment to you?
1
@frankmanning3815 I did make a comment. Repeatedly. For a few days, actually. You're still being a stubborn asshole.
1
Frank Manning I maintain that Trump was recorded as having committed (per the legal definition) embezzlement, for which he had previously been the subject of investigation, and that he (as he had done previously) used his wealth to receive a more favorable outcome. I’ve told you this a dozen or so times, but you’re still being a stubborn asshole.
1
Frank Manning He settled so the judge wouldn’t say he was found guilty, despite what he did being embezzlement (per the legal definition).
1
Frank Manning Oh my God, how many times do I have to repeat myself?
1
Frank Manning And what, pray tell, would you do with my answer?
1
Frank Manning Is there some DM feature we could use to conclude this exchange?
1
Bye liar: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_inquiry_of_president_trump-6956.html
1
nowonyuno No, thank you. Screaming incoherently is Trump's thing, not mine.
1
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment Bye liar.
1
@algorhythm4593 Bye, asshole. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-job-approval-ticks-up-views-on-impeachment-steady
1
 nowonyuno You defend a liar. You don't get the high ground. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-job-approval-ticks-up-views-on-impeachment-steady
1
@algorhythm4593 You don't get points for congratulating yourself through your second account.
1
@algorhythm4593 Okay, so you don't like when people make baseless assumptions. Then don't applaud one about me, hypocrite.
1
@algorhythm4593 It was baseless to assume I believed the polls that said Hillary would win, but you said that was a good point despite the fact that neither you nor the other Dunning-Kruger patient had any evidence to prove that was the case. You're a hypocrite and nothing you have said nor will say will make that less true.
1
@algorhythm4593 Do you honestly think I'm so stupid that I don't know what a hypocrite is? Or are you yourself projecting? You applauded the very thing you mocked me for doing, and there's a word for someone who does that: hypocrite. That is not baseless; that is on record. But the issue isn't that it bothers me. If it doesn't bother you that you're a hypocrite, how am I supposed to take you as anything more than a joke? How am I supposed to feel upset by you calling me a moron when you have at no point demonstrated any intelligence and never will? But also, why do you think it would make any difference as to whether I believe in God? Even if you had evidence to prove whether or not I did (you don't), that doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite and a moron. And you don't get to say Merry Christmas. Not because I'm declaring war on Christmas, but because you can't defend Jesus and an adulterous, embezzling billionaire at the same time. Pick one.
1
@algorhythm4593 "DO NOT try to match wits with those smarter than you." Thanks for the advice, but that'll never be a problem for me here. This place is full of idiots who don't know what cognitive dissonance is. Dunning-Kruger level: legendary.
1
@algorhythm4593 I didn't say I was the one with Dunning-Kruger. You're the one who claimed to be smarter than me based on intelligence you failed to demonstrate. I bet you're the kind of Trump defender who thinks it doesn't matter that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 but still insists that Trump was duly elected. For real, have you always been this shit at reading comprehension?
1
Algo Rhythm You keep deflecting, but all it does is show you have nothing of substance to argue.
1
@algorhythm4593 I'm asking YOU what the context is if you claim I'm taking your words out of context. But of course, you failed to explain, just like you fail at everything else. You fail to learn what cognitive dissonance is. You fail to grasp the depth of your hypocrisy. And you fail to be a Christian. Don't like profanity? Eat shit and get over it, snowflake. Go fuck yourself.
1
@algorhythm4593 I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you don't have, hypocrite.
1
@algorhythm4593 1. You have tons of material, eh? I call bullshit. You don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't resort to childish projection. 2. "I'm all for a healthy debate but have no stomach for arguing, especially with a fool like you. TDS is REAL." These two sentences cancel each other out. If you wanted healthy debate, you wouldn't be a Styx subscriber who uses TDS to dismiss all criticisms of Trump no matter how valid they may be. 3. You're not the only adult in the room. You're not an adult, period. Otherwise, again, you would be using those tons of substantive material you mentioned instead of being a playground bully. 4. "Truth is offensive to 'you people'." There you go projecting again. You claim to have truth but will never show it. 5. "Again, you don't believe in God, do you?" Again, how would my religion be relevant?
1
@algorhythm4593 It's sad that you think you won when you've done nothing to demonstrate the intelligence you claim to have. I asked you to show me your tons of substantive material. You move the goalposts by asking a question that has no relevance to the exchange and would not have any bearing on either my credibility or your lack of it. I don't answer the question for the reasons I just listed and insist you stay on topic. You stick your head even further up your own ass. Show me your substantive material or fuck off.
1
@algorhythm4593 You're adorable. I'm not refusing to answer the question because I'm a coward. I'm refusing because you have failed to explain its relevance. What would it matter whether I believed in God? "only proves you're not really interested in an answer but rather to just argue" You mean like what you've been doing this whole time. "I already know you don't believe in God, it's pretty apparent" You have no evidence to prove that, and again, you have failed to explain how that's relevant. "[you] will NEVER understand what that has to do with anything" That's a lazy cop-out if ever there was one. "What follows is a bunch of if-then statements, among other techniques and points, methodically and sytematically exposing your belief system, character, lies, and incorrect assertions." First of all, it's "systematically," you idiot. Secondly, again, all of this could be avoided. You could just explain what relevance the question has without being an asshole about it. "1) It's obvious you don't like Styx, his content, or the commentors; but that doesn't make him a liar" No, him being a liar makes him a liar. He once claimed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a communist without any evidence to prove it. "AND you failed to prove that and, additionally, mischaracterize his position as well as his commentors (check the thread and quote yourself---just because you make an assertion does not mean YOU'RE correct. It's only YOUR opinion, nothing more). " I literally just explained how you're wrong. It's not a matter of my opinion when I have proof he's a liar. Also, it's "commenter," you idiot. "2) "it's obvious you don't like Trump; but, not only that, you DO suffer from TDS." Your medical degree from Trump University was a waste of money. Get a real one, stop defending a con man, and shut up about conditions that don't exist. "Again, look back at the thread and YOU brought his name up, not me. I merely suggested you have TDS" If you're the one who brought up TDS, then you're the one who brought up his name, you idiot." "and THAT IS correct and evidenced by the your vulgarity" Every single person here who has ever pointed out my use of vulgarity puts me in a lose-lose situation where they won't listen to me no matter what words I use. I don't expect them to believe me, but I would like some consistency. What, calling someone retarded is okay but calling someone an asshole isn't? "your baseless assertions about Styx and his commentors being Trump supporters" Again, "commenter." And it's not a baseless assumption that Styx is a Trump supporter, idiot. "The drivel about HRC winning the popular vote" Except she did, by 2.8 million more votes. Either the popular vote doesn't matter or Trump was duly elected. I've heard Trump defenders claim both - pick one. "your demonization of Trump's character (admittedly, the man is flawed) but say nothing of HRC's character?!" Whataboutism gets you nothing. I don't pretend to be a fan of Hillary, but I will not pretend Trump isn't equally corrupt. "C'mon man, I know you're intellectually dishonest" There you go with more of your trademark baseless assumptions. "When they walk past the TV and HRC is on the screen, they turn to their parents and ask using their rudimentary language skills, 'Who dat 'cary laylee??'" What you're describing has never happened. "I'm sure the notion of '...wisdom from the mouths of babes' is COMPLETELY lost on you. Yes, I'm stating it: little children have more sense than you. " There you go with your trademark projections. I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you fail to provide. "3) Your trite maneuvering (eg. the misinformation, the cognitive dissonance, the ad hominim attacks, NOT answering simple questions, diverting, deflecting, etc.)" You've done everything you just listed. Also, it's "ad hominem," you idiot. "It's so predictable, thoughtless, and sophomoric." Projecting again. "You'll only persuade mush-heads like yourself with that methodology and rhetoric." Meanwhile, you failed to persuade me of anything other than that you're an idiot. "But the rest of us simply know intuitively the blaring, self-evident facts morons like you stumble over." You mean like what you've been doing? I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you fail to provide. "Again, you're not interested in facts or much less, what's right. " I call bullshit. You've never been interested in facts. Otherwise, you'd show those tons of substantive material you fail to provide. "This much is true, though: you REFUSED to do the exercise!" You REFUSED to explain the relevance of your question and to provide the tons of substantive material you assured me you have. "And as such, do not really care for or about the answer. You may even learn something or even (God forbid) discover you may be wrong. I know that's a terrifying concept for you, dum-dum." Projecting yet again. "My assertion: you're a coward who cares more about your image than the truth." You mean like what you are? If you cared about the truth, you would be showing it instead of being an incompetent playground bully. "I earnestly tried to answer/respond thoughtfully to you" Bullshit. No, you didn't. "it requires you to answer a simple question. You wouldn't even meet me half way." Because you refused to explain why it's relevant. "You have problems and you always will unless you get this nailed down." It's not my fault you're an incompetent Dunning-Kruger sufferer who can't cite a single fact. "You're a lazy student, lacking in curiosity and honesty. You are beyond reach and your future is bleak." Projecting again. "Not attacking you" Yes, you are. "just stating facts as I had done from my very first response to you." Bullshit. You never stated facts. You don't have any. Never did and never will. I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you clearly don't have. "Regardless, I do hope you have a Merry Christmas...you could use the cheer, for the Spirit is not in you. Tragic.😧😕" You sure as hell don't have the Spirit. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. " - 1 John 4:20
1
@algorhythm4593 "ANYONE can quote Scripture, dum-dum, but as for the Spirit? I am a believer, but I am no saint. I still have my own, ignorant, capricious, corrupt, profane personality...for which I take full ownership of and blame for." You didn't need to tell me that. You already proved that by calling me a dum-dum while continuing to fail to show the tons of substantive material you claimed to have. "On that note, I'm merely just a beggar trying to show other beggars where the Bread is." No, you're not. If you did, you wouldn't be a Styx subscriber. "That has everything to do with my assertions, mindset, thought-processes, etc. (you fill in the blank)." I don't need to. Your mind is already a blank. "You're not the same; it is not within the universe of your consideration that you could be wrong." That is definitely a lie. I accept that I've been proven wrong in the past. You just failed to do so. "What your faith has to do with this (not that you'll answer) is also everything to your position." No, it isn't. Regardless of what I believe, do you honestly think no one can be honest without religion? You don't get sympathy by hiding behind religion if you can't prove yourself without it. "With an honest discourse from you, I would demonstrate how it applies and be able to extrapolate further about your perceptions, positions, beliefs, notions, etc." Bullshit. You don't want honest discourse. You never showed the slightest inkling of capacity for it. "You're afraid of what it might reveal" You're making baseless assumptions again. I'm not afraid of what you're going to do because I don't take you seriously enough for that to be an issue. "This is a safe space, here, with me...I assure you. I'm just trying to get you to understand." Bullshit. No, it isn't. You don't care how I feel. Exhibit 196: "There is a Spirit that lives in you...and it's not a good one." Stop lying. "I don't care about winning." Yes, you do, liar. "I just want us to come to an understanding...to THE understanding (if such a thing even exists) maybe even agreement." No, you don't, liar. "While I lay bare my foibles and acknowledge them as such, I nevertheless endeavor toward honesty---despite of how flawed I am." Bullshit. You don't want honesty. Never did, never will. "Not saying you're evil" Yes, you are, liar. "No matter how you slice it, Trump was the lesser of the two evils." No, he was not. Again, I don't pretend Hillary was the best person for the job, but you pretend every single thing Trump does wouldn't be a career killer for anyone else. "I'm pretty sure I'm older than you, have been around some, and have learned some things in life." You have no evidence of my age. "I've developed a bad habit of seeing things as they are, NOT as I want them to be." No, you haven't, liar. "I still prefer the cold, hard, plain, cruel truth." No, you don't, liar. You never use it. "You should try it sometime...it's liberating." You first, liar. "I'm truly sorry for the name-calling." No, you're not, liar. "your recalcitrance is incredibly frustrating." Your Dunning-Kruger levels are incredibly frustrating. Get your head out of your ass and get treated for your messiah complex. "As far as Scripture is concerned, how bout this: 'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.' Eph. 6:12. The Clinton Apparatus is P-R-E-C-I-C-E-L-Y what this verse is referring to. Change my mind, Friend, if thou canst." It's "precisely," you idiot.
1
@algorhythm4593 "Your faithlessness says everything." I did not answer your question. And I explained the valid reasons I had for not answering your question. So keep making baseless assumptions; it only proves me right. "Funny how you use Scripture you don't believe in" Again, you're making baseless assumptions. Regardless of what I believe, Jesus was really explicitly clear about his opinions on liars. So stop being one; you're disappointing him. "Talk about cognitive dissonance" You mean the thing you clearly don't know the meaning of? "'You people' really are all the same. Thankfully, you're finally being identified." I'm still waiting for the tons of substantive material you definitely don't have, liar. "It's obvious you're young... " It's obvious you're making baseless assumptions again, liar.
1
@algorhythm4593 Again, what reason would I have to answer that question? What effect would my answer have on this discussion?
1
@algorhythm4593 "If you'd stop acting like a child and just be honest" Follow your own advice for a change. "You CANNOT bear the thought that I might be right about ANYTHING...nor would you even give me that. THAT'S why you won't answer!" No, I don't answer because you're moving the goalposts and asking a question that has no relevance to the original discussion. "Children do that and, in adults, is the mark of immaturity...evidence to the fact that you're young." I keep asking you to provide the tons of substantive material you claim to have. You have failed to do so. So when you act like you're better than me, you're a liar. "That is also why I'm the only adult in the room." It isn't and you're not, liar. "Both of our characters have been on display here and, Kiddo, I'm afraid it's just not looking too good for you but since EVERYTHING is 'baseless' according to you" Everything isn't baseless to me. Baseless is what you're doing by refusing to provide any evidence for anything you claim. You claim I'm young based on evidence you don't have. You claim you're an intelligent adult based on evidence you don't have. You claim I don't believe in God based on an answer I didn't give to a question that isn't relevant. It's not that I think everything I say is baseless. It's that everything you say just happens to be baseless. "My questions and assertions are pertinent to the discussion, that's why you won't speak to them. You lack credibility, its apparent." You forgot an apostrophe, idiot. That's not why I don't answer your question. And you're only fooling yourself when you pretend you had any credibility in the first place. "Lifehack: You had better hope and pray you NEVER end up in a court of law...it'll certainly end badly for you." Are you threatening me? That's not very Christlike.
1
@algorhythm4593 No, not at all. That's not how it works.
1
@algorhythm4593 That's not what I meant. I meant "No, that is not how it works at all. I don't give credence to baseless assertions by answering an irrelevant question."
1
@algorhythm4593 You have failed to adequately explain how it's relevant. The onus isn't on me to "get" it. You're the one making religion a part of a discussion that had nothing to do with it. If I did anything like that, I guarantee none of Styx's subscribers would let that slide.
1
@algorhythm4593 I'm not intimidated by anyone here. I just spent enough time to develop pattern recognition. Every Trump defender here has no idea what cognitive dissonance is. Again, you lie, make baseless assumptions, and fail to provide the tons of substantive material you claimed to have.
1
@algorhythm4593 I have a job, idiot.
1
@algorhythm4593 Pfft, like you've ever posted a thoughtful comment yourself. Everything you've said has shown you to be a liar and an idiot. You're not right about me. You're not right about anything.
1
@algorhythm4593 As I have stated repeatedly, you have given me no valid reason to believe your question has any relevance to the discussion. Your question is predicated on the baseless assumption that only the religious can be honest, which any actually intelligent person knows is a lie regardless of what they believe. That is why I am refusing to answer. Instead, I will suggest you pull your head out of your ass and read Matthew 7:15.
1
@algorhythm4593 Translation: "No, I don't think religious people are more honest, but you're too much of a stupid liar to understand that." Go fuck yourself.
1
@algorhythm4593 "I never claimed 'religious' people are the most honest, nor even morally superior in any way" "Spiritual people are responsible for more, however (I could explain, but you're positively incapable of understanding it)." These are your words. Read 'em and weep. Oh, and go fuck yourself.
1
@algorhythm4593 It was exact. And you're exactly the liar I said you are. If I took you out of context, you will fail to provide the actual context like you fail at everything else. Go fuck yourself.
1
@algorhythm4593 Bullshit. I showed your exact words. But keep proving me right about how you'll fail to provide the "real" context. Oh, and go fuck yourself.
1
@frankmanning3815 Or... https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-soho-criminal-fraud-case-ivanka-don-jr-dropped-after-campaign-donation-2017-10
1