Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Trump And Cruz Call For More Torture And Bombs After Brussels" video.

  1. um you have no sense. there is nothing here that would tell you he's Islamic. he decries and shames the religion's scriptures and fundamentalist/extremist adherents all the time. and also, he didn't indicate ANYTHING that would lead anyone with sense to the conclusion you have come to. you must either be a troll, or the most inane kind of parrot.
    3
  2. lol, no. that's just your assumptions based on zero evidence or dialectic proof. wanna see your kind of "argument"? (postulation) Benjamin Shultz has a Jewish last name! so hence he's a ZIONIST JEW FREAK who wants to TAKE OVER MEDIA! see how silly that is?
    2
  3. no, that your logic, which i mimicked and exemplified, as an example of said logical fallacy, is dumb and wrong and irrational. you can say he's a Muslim because his family is Muslim but that's called a faulty syllogism. is your family Christian? then you MUST be christian, right? RIGHT? or NO?
    2
  4. um what's your solution? dude, before you talk, gotta have a solution...otherwise, that's just criticising people whom are TRYING to make a difference. so do you have a solution? or is it just Trump's solution you want, and maybe you should SHH and let your leader do the talking....right? Kevin? Kev?
    1
  5. yeah, morals. PFFFT ETHICS HA who needs em
    1
  6. thanks for proving my point.
    1
  7. LOL he's an atheist. that's why your original comment is so asinine. oh and because of the rest of your bumbling tomfoolery.
    1
  8. i'd be taking a look in the mirror, if i was you.
    1
  9. because i don't want to go into your circular logic. i've already shown how you are axiomatically incorrect in your assertions. and i'm sorry,but i'm almost 100% my vocabulary is a bit more attuned than yours.
    1
  10. "You wrote "axiomatically" yeah. and where is the error. you think there's one. where is it? And it wasn't digging, it was right there in your previous comment just before mine. it was slightly digging. you had to go back a comment to find a reason to make a stupid AXIOMATICALLY erroneous comprehension of language, by assuming there's an error (which you can point out right?) where there is none. i'd call that digging. or just call it 'a stretch'. "And I said I was using HYPERBOLE, I don't really think he is a muslim, but I do think he is biased as I already said. Hyperbole is a complicated word for ya?" is axiomatically a hard one for you? lol so it was hyperbole? so basically you've waited till now to lambaste your own self? if it was hyperbole, what were you indicating? can you tell the jury?
    1
  11. LOL oop changing the goal posts. i used Axiomatically incorrect? laughable. you are axiomatically wrong.
    1
  12. um no. Axiomatic: Self-evident or unquestionable. there's the definition. you may now proceed to turn tail.
    1
  13. LOL you can keep saying that, doesn't mean you aren't axiomatically incorrect.
    1
  14. LOL no. Shults is again axiomatically incorrect; which is obviously ​true and ​therefore not ​needing to be ​proved.
    1
  15. axiomatically incorrect?
    1
  16. Oh, so I was correct? Thanks for clarifying.
    1
  17. since you've kept me amused for so long, maybe you wouldn't mind explaining to the court what the word "axiomatically" means and how you'd use it?
    1
  18. axiomatically, i am using it right. LOL can you, you know...SHOW me how i'm using it wrong? i dunno, use it in a sentence. gopher it.
    1
  19. you have axiomatically used axiomatically correct, like i have. just like when i had axiomatically proven your logic to be fallacious.
    1
  20. still not showing how so, so is that an appeal to ignorance from you? or?
    1
  21. no, it is actually axiomatically how i used the word, and i've provided proof, and you've none; and circular/regressive logic is not going to help substantiate your claim.
    1
  22. dude, your entire reasoning, axiomatically, relies on the circular/regressive logic. "you're using the word incorrectly -- because you're using the word incorrectly" circular logic ^ that's your argument; unless you actually have one and you just haven't shared it with me yet. "you've not used the word as it's defined in the dictionary -- shows that it's being used how it's defined as an adverb in the dictionary -- you're not using it correctly" regressive logic^ oh and this too, when you have to use repetition to make an illogical postulation stick.
    1
  23. i understand it axiomatically as an adverb describing something "Self-evident or unquestionable", which is axiomatically how i used the word. which is still the same thing, now only i have to repeat myself because there is no logical bedrock to your conclusions at all. =)
    1
  24. it's really not an opinion. axiomatically, i used the word correctly. hence, not an opinion. even when i first used it, it was signify that your argument held no weight and had no substance, and was patently false, and illogical, with no logical premise or conclusion -- a failure, all round, in logic. so hence the word was used to describe just how obvious your wrongness was and to describe that you need to make logical propositions, to be "correct"; which wasn't the case for you, AXIOMATICALLY. LOL but you don't recognize that (why would you? you'd have to admit you were wrong), so you keep regressing into the logic that "i have not used the word Axiomatically correctly (false) thus i do not have to address how i was wrong, so i can still pretend i was right all along!" LOL that's your "logic".
    1
  25. oh sure, just take my position then, because you know, we can all just say "no, you."
    1
  26. what would be incorrect would be to presume the word functions different from it's usage. referential fallacy. QED. stop endlessly circling the drain already.
    1
  27. not really. axiomatically.
    1
  28. no. correctly.
    1
  29. thank you.
    1
  30. WHAT? because the news video TYT used (produced by TODAY, not TYT) had Donald Trump's name up with the photo of the terrorist? what are you smoking? can i have some?
    1
  31. can you make a logical statement or make an argument? at least? Bacon? B?
    1
  32. we are in a spin cycle of insanity. we've hit a statistical anomaly. we're met with a recurrence loop, of exponential release. everyone is spinning out of control. all the faiths. all the ideologies. all the walks of life. we've lost the plot.
    1
  33. it's so like, please let it be over.
    1
  34. Bush sends our American men and women to Iraq (to "get killed": more on that) = Obama did it Trump and Cruz want to fight ISIS, when last year/year before, republicans were asking that no one go to fight ISIS, because we "have enough problems at home" and "we don't want to send anymore people to die for that unamiercan cause", and now republicans are A-OK with that previous strategy that they discarded, when it was viable, and then blame Obama for everything again. you republicans are sad sad cretins.
    1
  35. just like regressive is also just a pejorative term...oh wait...coinage of terms, that doesn't apply to conservative buzzwords...right? Wayne? Wayne bubie?
    1
  36. propagate the term if you think it's a problem. you know how many church burnings and anti-Christian sentiment there was in Norway? you know, when the Christians took over? there was a lot...and still is. and you have to wonder, why...? probably because they were homogenized by Christians, and the Christians slayed their people, in the name of Christianity, and then took their Nordic religions and destroyed it, and replaced it with their own religion. HMMM interesting.
    1
  37. LOL the last refuge of the damned. Grammar. plus my grammar and sentence structure is fine. you just are running out of ideas on what to attack. i would love for you to show me my lacking sentence structure. go!
    1
  38. I will now capitalize my sentences to appease the masses. PS: you still haven't proven a single shread of anything. PPS: oops kinda undercut myself, didn't i?
    1
  39. and Islamophobia causes some insane people to burn down mosques and send threats to people and attack them on the street. the FEAR ie PHOBIA of the IDEALS causes people to PANIC and do STUPID SHIT. like Sandra Snow already stated. get it yet, gorm? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/16/mosque-of-peace-set-ablaze-two-others-in-florida-threatened-as-discussion-of-islam-heats-up/
    1
  40. Wayne Morgan yeah and we're still talking about how Islamophobia causes people to be reactionary and irrational and burn down mosques and attack Muslims on the streets. but that's also besides the point, that is: you guys aren't making any relevant points. we already know Islam is a religion that has terrible and dumb precepts.
    1
  41. "There is nothing to get because Islamophobia does not exist. Yes, profile ALL Muslims until this problem is solved. Move on." you're an idiot. first off -- if "regressive left" is a term -- so is Islamophobia. people made it up. yeah, so they had a word to use to describe what they thought about and thought they were seeing. secondly: no, you just contradicted yourself. first you say that "this isn't standard xenophobia", then you say "profile all Muslims". contradiction in terms.
    1
  42. no, i'm against the thought police, and idiocy and phobias and fears. i am a man. a freeman. and a freethinker. i don't need your ideology.
    1
  43. simple equation = we were too late to take out ISIS in a coordinated effort, that would work, when they were a smaller force with less territory; but stupid republican (mainly) (actually across the board, libs and conservatives and dems, too) idiots said "no, we have enough problems at home, no boots on the ground". RETARDS.
    1