Final Countdown - Page 5

No, I am not sure what is the British insult and meaning in the use of "trump". My guess though... would it have anything to do with the release of air from the bowels?

 

The college boy is coming home for dinner and a vote on Tuesday. The younger one has planned a day of video gaming with a buddy since they have a day off from school. I will be grilling lamb chops by request.

We have to eat early though, so college boy can make it back to the dorm for the election vote party that will be happening.

I have no idea who he is voting for, and I won't even ask. If he feels like sharing, then, ok.

Very good Bee. Seems kind of appropriate that it's a fart, don't you think ?

Potty jokes are always a hit...with the six year old crowd. I wonder if Hillary ever cut the cheese while on her yoga mat, it's been known to happen, ya know? Maybe she wrote about it in an email to Huma?

Can you imagine what kind of program the FBI would need to data mine that info! ☺️

@beetree, I say you are fixated because you continue to post things that are untrue. Here's a recap:

1. You said I disagreed with the professor. That is not true.
2. You said I called Trump a complete fascist (whatever that even means). That is not true.

Now you say I disagreed with his formula and wanted a scientific formula, which is untrue. I simply stated the fact that it is not a scientific formula. I never said I wanted a scientific one. That isn't even possible. And this led you to make a comment about Sam Harris that ends up making no sense given it was based on a false premise, that is, that I wanted a scientific formula.

You now say I don't want to understand the variables, which is untrue. I didn't say Trump was exactly like Mussolini or Hitler. I just said he was a fascist. If you wanted to know "how" fascist I think he is then you could have asked. And it is an either or condition. If you are a little bit racist you are still a racist. Ask yourself, if someone is somewhat fascist and you had to choose between calling him a fascist or saying he isn't a fascist, what would you choose? There is also something called context. Yes, compared to Mussolini Trump is a lightweight (probably because he lacks the pseudo-intellectual philosophizing of Mussolini, let alone the actual intellectualism of Gentile) but in the context of the USA, given what out Founders intended, he is not as much of a lightweight in that regard. In other words, you couldn't be like Mussolini or Hitler in this country and expect to get on the ballot, let alone win (for many reasons). By 1920-30s Italian and German standards Trump is a joke but by our standards in America in 2016 he is not quite as funny.

So why the need to post things that aren't true?

What is true is that you left out the conclusion of that article. That is not inaccurate. Are you saying you did post it? I don't want to call you a liar or say that you argue like someone you hate to be lumped in with but you might want to learn what the words true and false mean. Accurate and inaccurate. Fact and opinion.

Something else that is true is that your continuous flow of untruths allowed you to avoid the main point, which was Trump's fascism. You want to avoid facing how much of a fascist he is by saying he isn't too much of a fascist. Rather than focus on where he comes up short with regard to fascism how about talking about where he doesn't?

The point stands: Trump is a fascist. Your article states it. Unless you want to disagree with your own proof. So not only does your professor agree with me (he should as I know as much if not more about this than he. I have a Master's in Italian and have read and studied fascist documents in the original Italian. I also know people who grew up under fascism, including my own father.) but you agree with me. It took some doing but we managed to agree on something in the end.

Using adjectives doesn't make something untrue because you don't use adjectives. You speak in black and white. I speak and use all shades of gray. Who then is the judge of what is true?

Let's see this though. I have a bit more time now.

You are ridiculous thinking you must only be understood, using only your own definitions. How nice is that? It certainly allows you to be the winner in your eyes, every single time. 

Homey don't play that game.

Yup, you said it, "facist Trump". And he isn't a very good one, bottomline. Now, we can agree?

I don't ask how much of a facist you think he is or not, because you spoke your position as an absolute, and still do. I defined my position quite well, I think, with proof from a Georgetown History professor that people can and do exhibit facist traits within degrees.

I don't care to parse the hairs between denying something like understanding, for the lack or wanting of something to follow: like a scientific formula. The idea remains the same. It is that comfort of the black and white idea, that you succor to and accept as the basis of all facts. Your GOD: FACT. Isn't that what you strive to use, so as to obliterate the faith in GOD? That there is a substitute equal to faith based in science, its laws and formulas? 

FACTS, are then what you want to be absolute, and then life messes that all up,  How to reconcile it all? They must be lumped together with the pronouncement of: inaccurate.

I am just more liberal in allowing people to be the flawed people they are, than you. 

Fancy that.

 

 

 

 

And then there is this bit of twistedness:

What is true is that you left out the conclusion of that article. That is not inaccurate. Are you saying you did post it? I don't want to call you a liar or say that you argue like someone you hate to be lumped in with but you might want to learn what the words true and false mean. Accurate and inaccurate. Fact and opinion.

The conclusion is available in the link. That is an unavoidable fact, and that you want to suggest otherwise, that such information is unavailable or not put within reach by me, is the lie. If you are a liar, I have no problem calling you a liar. If you call me a liar, you damn well better be sure about it.

So why the need to post things that aren't true?

There is no need and your conclusion regarding the discernment of "truth" is under debate. I couldn't care to respond to you at all, except you do continue to respond to my posts. And sometimes, I answer back. 

Probably because there is little choice.

i read a great opinion piece from Washington Post... i think it was, very early in the morning, today. About how a real look at what would happen the day after the election would be like.

It took into account the two possible outcomes.

I can't find it now, but it said some of what I said, that no matter who wins, there will not be an end to the free world as we know it, no matter what.

I'll keep looking, and will post it... if and when.... I find it again.