• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Duggars expecting SIXTEENTH grandchild. Great example for young people.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mashmont said:
I don't know about your arrangement, but they are nothing like a real marriage like mine. They can't have coitis, no matter how hard they try.
Click to expand...

Coitus. They enjoy themselves trying to have it.
 
Mashmont said:
I don't know about your arrangement, but they are nothing like a real marriage like mine. They can't have coitis, no matter how hard they try.
Click to expand...

Neither can many male/female married couples. That is not a requirement (legally) of marriage (not anymore). And it has never been a requirement for every single personal marriage. You don't get to define marriage for everyone else, regardless of how badly you may want to. You don't own the word nor the concept, nor does your religion.
 
roguenuke said:
. That is not a requirement (legally) of marriage (not anymore). And it has never been a requirement for every single personal marriage. .
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about legally, obviously. We know it's a screwed-up ruling. We're talking about what is right and moral.
 
marke said:
Clinton denied he made several trips to pedophile isle? Sure he did and so do others who deny they indulged in perverted abusive illegal sex there.
Click to expand...

And you can prove that he did?
 
Mashmont said:
We aren't talking about legally, obviously. We know it's a screwed-up ruling. We're talking about what is right and moral.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. And their marriages are just as "right and moral" as mine is, as yours is, as the Duggars' are. You are free to believe differently, but you don't get to dictate that as fact to others. Because it isn't.

It is funny how you keep having to edit my posts to avoid the rest of what I have been saying, and try to continue to argue something that has already been covered.
 
Mashmont said:
Yeah? Tell me how I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

To do that we would have to start at elementary school level to remove all the BS fake crap you have "learned" from dishonest extreme right wing talking heads. Then we can get you up to speed high school level and eventually you will no longer be a misinformed and can start to learn about these things. I dont have the time required to save you from your delusions.
 
Mashmont said:
Philandering isn't a crime, like he did all his adult life. Doesn't keep him from being a dirtbag. But why don't we see what the Epstein investigation leads to, shall we? The book isn't closed on the red-nose POS.
Click to expand...

So is Josh a dirt bag for feeling up girls when they are sleeping (and some while awake)?
If you accept they are both scum you wont be a hypocrite but you wont do that will you?
 
Peter King said:
Well I cannot remember that but most likely it was inaccurate or highly biased. That is mostly how people on the right/conservative/religious think about the Netherlands/EU.
Click to expand...

You believe these people think?
 
Mashmont said:
Yeah, we're talking about real marriage, not that hocus pocus government definition. Couples can do certain things only in a real marriage. Hint: All parts have to be present.
Click to expand...

No true scotsman fallacy again.
 
Mashmont said:
We aren't talking about legally, obviously. We know it's a screwed-up ruling. We're talking about what is right and moral.
Click to expand...

What is right and moral is for you immoral anti-Jesus Christians to stop trying to force your perverted views on others
 
Mashmont said:
Um try 26 times, several to Molestation Island and several to known sex-trafficking countries WITHOUT his SS detail in tow.

Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They Connected? - The New York Times
Click to expand...

You are an expert as loosing debates even if you provide the so-called evidence with it.

You said that he flew several times to the island?

Here is what the article says:

Mr. Clinton visited Mr. Epstein’s New York apartment once around 2002, according to Mr. Ureña’s statement. The former president was accompanied by a staff member and his security detail.

He never visited Mr. Epstein’s palatial residence in Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Ureña said, nor has he been to the financier’s ranch in New Mexico or his private island in the Virgin Islands.
Click to expand...

So your claim that he went to his island is a bit fat :failpail:


Then you claimed he went to several well known sex trafficking countries, well the article you provide has a link to a FoxNews article in which it states:
logs do not show Clinton aboard any flights to St. Thomas, the nearest airport capable of accommodating Epstein's plane. They do show Clinton flying aboard Epstein’s plane to such destinations as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Africa.
Click to expand...

So once again, no evidence Clinton ever went near that island, another failed argument on your side. The article also does not say he ditched his security team, in fact it says:

Official flight logs filed with the Federal Aviation Administration show Clinton traveled on some of the trips with as many as 10 U.S. Secret Service agents. However, on a five-leg Asia trip between May 22 and May 25, 2002, not a single Secret Service agent is listed. The U.S. Secret Service has declined to answer multiple Freedom of Information Act requests filed by FoxNews.com seeking information on these trips. Clinton would have been required to file a form to dismiss the agent detail, a former Secret Service agent told FoxNews.com.
Click to expand...

So you can suspect he ditched his team on 1 trip purely because they were not mentioned, but that is not evidence that he traveled without them.

In 2005 when it became public what he was doing, neither Trump or Clinton had anything to do with Epstein ever again.

In short your claims are a bit steaming pile of :bs and a huge and utter :failpail:
 
Peter King said:
You are an expert as loosing debates even if you provide the so-called evidence with it.

You said that he flew several times to the island?

Here is what the article says:



So your claim that he went to his island is a bit fat :failpail:


Then you claimed he went to several well known sex trafficking countries, well the article you provide has a link to a FoxNews article in which it states:


So once again, no evidence Clinton ever went near that island, another failed argument on your side. The article also does not say he ditched his security team, in fact it says:



So you can suspect he ditched his team on 1 trip purely because they were not mentioned, but that is not evidence that he traveled without them.

In 2005 when it became public what he was doing, neither Trump or Clinton had anything to do with Epstein ever again.

In short your claims are a bit steaming pile of :bs and a huge and utter :failpail:
Click to expand...

Sorry, for the grammar extremists under us, losing debates, not loosing debates. Pardon my Dutch.
 
Quag said:
To do that we would have to start at elementary school level to remove all the BS fake crap you have "learned" from dishonest extreme right wing talking heads. Then we can get you up to speed high school level and eventually you will no longer be a misinformed and can start to learn about these things. I dont have the time required to save you from your delusions.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't tell me specifically what part of my statement was wrong. Got it.
 
Quag said:
So is Josh a dirt bag for feeling up girls when they are sleeping (and some while awake)?
If you accept they are both scum you wont be a hypocrite but you wont do that will you?
Click to expand...

Josh was a child who did something harmless. The red-nosed SOB, Bill Clinton did his vile deeds as an adult hundreds of times.
 
Peter King said:
You are an expert as loosing debates even if you provide the so-called evidence with it.

You said that he flew several times to the island?

Here is what the article says:



So your claim that he went to his island is a bit fat :failpail:


Then you claimed he went to several well known sex trafficking countries, well the article you provide has a link to a FoxNews article in which it states:


So once again, no evidence Clinton ever went near that island, another failed argument on your side. The article also does not say he ditched his security team, in fact it says:



So you can suspect he ditched his team on 1 trip purely because they were not mentioned, but that is not evidence that he traveled without them.

In 2005 when it became public what he was doing, neither Trump or Clinton had anything to do with Epstein ever again.

In short your claims are a bit steaming pile of :bs and a huge and utter :failpail:
Click to expand...

Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been trafficked by Epstein, told her lawyers in 2011 interview that she saw Clinton with “two young girls” on the island. “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?,’ [that] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’” Roberts told her lawyers. Jeffrey Epstein’s Little St. James Island: What We Know

Another example of why I never 'loose' debates. lol
 
Quag said:
What is right and moral is for you immoral anti-Jesus Christians to stop trying to force your perverted views on others
Click to expand...

An atheist talking about 'perverted views'?

Rich.
 
Quag said:
No true scotsman fallacy again.
Click to expand...

A true marriage is only that type of arrangement in which coitis is possible. A fake 'marriage' is that type arrangement in which coitis is impossible. Very simple.

Please learn what the hell the NTS fallacy is.
 
Mashmont said:
Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been trafficked by Epstein, told her lawyers in 2011 interview that she saw Clinton with “two young girls” on the island. “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?,’ [that] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’” Roberts told her lawyers. Jeffrey Epstein’s Little St. James Island: What We Know

Another example of why I never 'loose' debates. lol
Click to expand...

You are just imagining you are not losing a debate because in all honestly you get your proverbial ass handed to you every time someone responds to one of your posts.

Like this one, innocent until proven otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever except this lady that proves for 1 millisecond that Clinton was ever there. Even FoxNews did not see any evidence of him ever being there. And you cannot just magic yourself somewhere nor can you just travel somewhere incognito if you are the former president of the USA Bill Clinton.
 
Mashmont said:
An atheist talking about 'perverted views'?

Rich.
Click to expand...

Yup, just because you believe in some magic book does not make you a good person. Any christian on the planet can be a pervert, hell many of them are. Just like you cannot claim atheists have perverted views because they do not believe in sky people. Sure any atheist can be a pervert or have perverted views but religious people are just as likely to have those perverted views. Some might even be because they believe in a book for which there is no evidence it was anything more than the work of men.
 
Mashmont said:
A true marriage is only that type of arrangement in which coitus is possible. A fake 'marriage' is that type arrangement in which coitus is impossible. Very simple.

Please learn what the hell the NTS fallacy is.
Click to expand...
Everyone has their own opinions. Your opinion of what creates or mandates a marriage is not shared by others, just as the idea that sugar does not belong on porridge.
no true Scotsman
You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.
Click to expand...
Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman





If the man is injured and has no penis does that mean that he cannot marry or must get an annulment? Is a post-menopausal woman also forbid to marry?
 
Mashmont said:
We aren't talking about legally, obviously. We know it's a screwed-up ruling. We're talking about what is right and moral.
Click to expand...
You may be "talking about what is right and moral" -- but your antagonists are merely spouting political talking points devoid of critical thought.
 
Mashmont said:
You must not know anybody then. 6.3% Unemployment rate (down from 11%) compared to 3.7% of the US. That's 70% higher than ours. And we have all those minorities and illegals.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom