We all know he is a pig, but...

[since9]

I said nothing about the justice system. My point is that it is a moral imperative to treat someone as innocent until proven guilty. The legal principle is a consequence of the moral principle.

Within reason. I stopped treating Hillary Clinton as innocent the moment I shared breakfast with one of her compatriots who was classmates with one of the two troopers who were hung out to dry for revealing the truth. Once one has crossed the mental threshold that there might actually be someone in high levels of government who managed to gain deep access through deceit, subterfuge, and who knows what other grossly if not heinously illegal means, despite being guilty as hell, headlines such as the following become rather laughable, except for the fact that a number of people DIED because classified e-mails were hacked on her highly illegal personal servers.

Hillary Clinton on wiping email server: 'Like with a cloth or something?'

She doesn't have a mountain of weight against her. It's Continental. I'm pretty sure she set world records at getting away with highly illegal activities. Here's one to which she admitted, inadvertently, but under oath, before Congress.

Ok, off the anti-Hillary rant.

I wouldn’t vote for Biden for two reasons: His sleaziness is already well-enough proven, AND he is a progressive. Either is sufficient to keep me from voting for him.

OUTSTANDING!!!

No, seriously, eye95, when it comes to "in all good faith and conscience, I cannot endorse or support this candidate in any way, shape, manner or form." Neither my Christian, Bible-based faith, nor my good conscience born of military service and the knowledge of absolutely doing what's good, right, noble and truth before God, country and my fellow man would ever allow me to support or endorse Joseph Biden for public office.

 

[since9]

Sorry you fail to see nor acknowledge this simple fact!

Oh, the "simple fact" approach! Oh, Goody! I haven't seen this mistake in quite some time!

This lends itself to having violated several logical fallacies. Here's one:

"As a paradox, "the masked man" is based on a story along the following lines: suppose that you see a man but don't recognize him as your father because he's wearing a mask―perhaps it's Hallowe'en. So, you don't know who the masked man is, but you do know who your father is, yet your father and the masked man are one and the same. Therefore, you both know and don't know who your father is, which is paradoxical. The solution to the paradox is to realize that the argument just given is fallacious."


Put simply, in deference to you, you're masquerading truth of a second kind as "simple fact" i.e. truth of a first kind. But the "simple fact" has overtones of reverse red herring approach, appeal to ignorance...

Bottom line, solus, you're all over the map. The worst and least logical arguments violate many precepts, and yours is no exception.

 

[since9]

I give up, completely wasted my breath(text)!

Not on I. If that's enough to keep you in the game, I hope you stick around.

If not, catch you on the backside.

 

[solus]

Please cite any and all laws which he broke.

Yes, largely.

Agreed, especially with your "Creepy Uncle Joe" moniker. I and countless others use it online in many other forums all the time.

You should have trademarked it!

Indeed. Some people are just too touchy-feely.

Also agreed, and I think our statutes of limitations need to be adjusted to more reasonable values.

We the People know. I don't know who or what keeps defending the presumably innocent hands-on bastage.

Hurray, no longer on ignore ~ HUZZAH.

Since9, knock off the hypocrisy and read and follow the first line of your signature block!

 

[solus]

Oh, the "simple fact" approach! Oh, Goody! I haven't seen this mistake in quite some time!

This lends itself to having violated several logical fallacies. Here's one:

"As a paradox, "the masked man" is based on a story along the following lines: suppose that you see a man but don't recognize him as your father because he's wearing a mask―perhaps it's Hallowe'en. So, you don't know who the masked man is, but you do know who your father is, yet your father and the masked man are one and the same. Therefore, you both know and don't know who your father is, which is paradoxical. The solution to the paradox is to realize that the argument just given is fallacious."


Put simply, in deference to you, you're masquerading truth of a second kind as "simple fact" i.e. truth of a first kind. But the "simple fact" has overtones of reverse red herring approach, appeal to ignorance...

Bottom line, solus, you're all over the map. The worst and least logical arguments violate many precepts, and yours is no exception.

HUZZAH another read from the gentleman who boasted numerous times on this forum i was on ignore....great display of hypocritical behaviour yet again...yahoooo!

Put succinctly for your understanding, WE ALL KNOW who the infamous “masked man” was ~ THE LONE RANGER riding to the finale of Rossini’s William Tell overture.

 

[since9]

I've always found Biden to be rather vile.

 

[since9]

Hurray, no longer on ignore ~ HUZZAH.

Since9, knock off the hypocrisy and read and follow the first line of your signature block!

Seriously? The second off ignore you wrongfully accuse me of hypocrisy?

Back on ignore.

My God, what a moron.

 

[eye95]

Within reason. I stopped treating Hillary Clinton as innocent the moment I shared breakfast with one of her compatriots who was classmates with one of the two troopers who were hung out to dry for revealing the truth. Once one has crossed the mental threshold that there might actually be someone in high levels of government who managed to gain deep access through deceit, subterfuge, and who knows what other grossly if not heinously illegal means, despite being guilty as hell, headlines such as the following become rather laughable, except for the fact that a number of people DIED because classified e-mails were hacked on her highly illegal personal servers.

Hillary Clinton on wiping email server: 'Like with a cloth or something?'

She doesn't have a mountain of weight against her. It's Continental. I'm pretty sure she set world records at getting away with highly illegal activities. Here's one to which she admitted, inadvertently, but under oath, before Congress.

Ok, off the anti-Hillary rant.



OUTSTANDING!!!

No, seriously, eye95, when it comes to "in all good faith and conscience, I cannot endorse or support this candidate in any way, shape, manner or form." Neither my Christian, Bible-based faith, nor my good conscience born of military service and the knowledge of absolutely doing what's good, right, noble and truth before God, country and my fellow man would ever allow me to support or endorse Joseph Biden for public office.

Yes. The standard for deciding someone is not innocent is far lower for our opinion than for a legal one—with good reason: We cannot use the power of the state to remove someone’s Life, Liberty, or property if we believe him or her to be guilty.

Hillary’s guilt has been proven sufficiently for me to overcome the moral imperative of treating her as innocent until proven guilty.

Other examples: Smollett has been proven guilty to my satisfaction. Trump* and Kavanaugh have not (not even close in those cases).
____

* Innocent of actual crimes related to the 2016 election. IMO, he has clearly been proven to be a sleazy adulterer.

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

I’ve just started Victor Davis Hanson’s The Case for Trump (Basic, 5 March, 2019)

The Case for Trump: Hanson, Victor Davis: 9781541673540: Amazon.com: Books

The Case for Trump [Hanson, Victor Davis] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Case for Trump

www.amazon.com

Hanson grew up much as I did, California agricultural community and farm worker. He’s five years younger than I am and from Selma (Fresno), California. I own 80 acres west of I-5 at Fresno.

 

[OC for ME]

...well-qualified Republican rivals...

Too funny.

...We could not survive a series of presidencies as volatile as Trump's. ...

Really...

Not sure Hanson has a grasp on reality.

Home

Has the Military Lost Middle America VDH’s Blade of Perseus // Private Papers Traditionalist and conservative America once was the U.S. military’s greatest defender. Bipartisan conservatives in Congress ensured generous Pentagon budgets. Statistics of those killed in action, in both Afghanistan...

victorhanson.com

 

[HP995]

Amazing pic.

 

[solus]

OUTSTANDING

 

[solus]

I’ve just started Victor Davis Hanson’s The Case for Trump (Basic, 5 March, 2019)

The Case for Trump: Hanson, Victor Davis: 9781541673540: Amazon.com: Books

The Case for Trump [Hanson, Victor Davis] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Case for Trump

www.amazon.com

Hanson grew up much as I did, California agricultural community and farm worker. He’s five years younger than I am and from Selma (Fresno), California. I own 80 acres west of I-5 at Fresno.

Wait, thought you self proclaimed you were from SC dougy

 

[CJ4wd]

We all know he is a pig, capable of such icky behavior, but Joe Biden is due the same presumptions of innocence that we demanded for Kavanaugh.

There is one major difference - there was NO visible evidence against Kavanaugh. With "Slow Joe", there are multiple videos out there of him doing something questionable.

 

[eye95]

There is no evidence of the specific charge against Biden. He should be presumed innocent.

All the other icky stuff of which we have photos and videos? He is guilty of being a handsy sleaze.

 

[OC for ME]

Uncle Joe is the recipient of special consideration from all quarters. A diverse group of individuals calling for Uncle Joe to be left alone because handsy is not the same as harasser...BS!! Perception is reality, female right - male wrong. "Due process" is not a consideration in the realm of civil litigation cuz a company was not proactive in addressing a complaint. I'd be hung out to dry and I would bear the burden to clear my good name. The female would get off Scott free if she were a false accuser.

The times they have changed, The Veep has it right, avoid the potential perception all together...do not trust females in the workplace...professionalism must be strictly observed. This position I have taken over the past several years has already garnered one negative comment from one of my female coworkers. Is this fair to my female team members? Nope, but this ain't my problem and no man is going to change the new paradigm.

Anyway, not being "socially friendly" in the workplace, treating each other as equals around the water cooler, as I used to be, is not a company policy violation.

 

[solus]

There is no evidence of the specific charge against Biden. He should be presumed innocent.

All the other icky stuff of which we have photos and videos? He is guilty of being a handsy sleaze.

Presumed innocent...especially SINCE there are no charges.

Eye95, what in sam hill is wrong with you as it seems you are continually wanting to use the forum to incite negative character items about individuals in court of public in an effort to harm these individual reputations for some reason(s)?

Let’s see, current in your started thread by labeling the 47th VP & distinguished congressional member ~ A PIG!

Then continue to lambast his character throughout the thread!

Finally eye95, in post #36 you have the audacity to state...”no charges”...”presumed innocence” “He is guilty of being a handsy sleaze.”

Seriously eye95, you are as bad as jammer in degrading and tarnishing this forum’s reputation through your continuing incitement of the court of public court by you character assassination against public individual(s).

Your comments are circulating the www with JPCitizens saying...oh lookie this gun forum is trashing so & so...and the post stay out in the etherworld forever.

 

[color of law]

Some forget that eye95 is trying to build his legacy as not being a manumitter.

 

[since9]

There is no evidence of the specific charge against Biden. He should be presumed innocent.

As the gent said, "there are multiple videos out there of him doing something questionable," and by "questionable," I think he means the kind of touching that would get anyone in private business or public service fired in a heartbeat.

By "videos," I think he means "evidence of the specific charge."

All the other icky stuff of which we have photos and videos? He is guilty of being a handsy sleaze.

Wasn't that the charge? Sounds like a euphemism for "sexual misconduct" to me.

 

[eye95]

Not the specific accusation. There is no evidence of the specific accusation. Therefore, I choose not to hold this specific accusation against Biden. Still, he is a known handsy sleaze. Either that alone or his progressivism alone is sufficient for me never to vote for him.

No matter. The issue has completely died in the media. Had the accused not been a progressive, do you think the accused would still be under a media microscope?