The Sound of Freedom

[Jefferson]

Oh sure, heard of it but how about you clarify just exactly what it is in your own words? After all, you have claimed that I'm a shill for such.

We can start with the US Military Industrial Complex. The Pentagon has never been audited, despite the fact that this is illegal. Since 1996, $10 trillion in tax payer money has gone unaccounted for.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We can start with the US Military Industrial Complex. The Pentagon has never been audited, despite the fact that this is illegal. Since 1996, $10 trillion in tax payer money has gone unaccounted for.

The pentagon has never been audited? So, this happened under Trump's tenure as well, right?

 

[7djengo7]

If something's credible then it requires verification.

Why? Or else what, exactly?

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

If you think you can come up with an answer to that question, fill in the blank with your "answer":

If something's credible then it requires verification [because _________________________?]

 

[Arthur Brain]

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

If you think you can come up with an answer to that question, fill in the blank with your "answer":

Oh get some new material you tedious bore. You were answered and if you can't do the math then eh, that's on you.

 

[7djengo7]

Things become credible

No they don't. Things don't become credible. What's credible is always credible. What's not credible is never credible.

Oh get some new material you tedious bore.

See post #243. Try to deal rationally with the old material. So far, you have failed to do so, leaving my questions unanswered, and lying about that fact. For shame.

I have zero doubt about the fact that you're far from bored.

 

[Jefferson]

The pentagon has never been audited? So, this happened under Trump's tenure as well, right?

Correct. One thing Trump admitted was he was surprised to learn that the Swamp was much deeper and wider than he originally thought.

 

[7djengo7]

rumble.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

Thanks for the handy template, @Arthur Brain:

Jim Caviezel pushes QAnon in bizarre media blitz for new anti-trafficking movie

www.mediamatters.org

mediamatters.org?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America

Jim Caviezel stars as a hero trying to stop child traffickers in a paranoid new movie turning into a surprise box-office hit

www.theguardian.com

theguardian.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

Why Anti-Trafficking Experts Are Torching ‘Sound of Freedom’

The new movie offers a "false perception" of child trafficking that experts worry could further harm the real victims

www.yahoo.com

yahoo.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

How conservatives turned Ray Epps into a Capitol riot scapegoat

Epps described his treatment following the Jan 6 Capitol riot by fellow conservatives as ‘criminal’. Graig Graziosi explains how he got here

www.independent.co.uk

Independent.co.uk?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

Tim Ballard Has ‘Stepped Away’ From Operation Underground Railroad, Org Says

The founder of the controversial anti-trafficking group left before the launch of "Sound of Freedom," a surprisingly successful movie about his exploits.

www.vice.com

vice.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

How Hollywood’s ‘Jesus’ Jim Caviezel Went Full QAnon

Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast / Photos GettyJim Caviezel, best known for playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and his starring role in CBS’ Person of Interest, made people do a double take when he appeared at a right-wing conference in April to promote his...

news.yahoo.com

yahoo.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

I don't trust any given news source alone until it's corroborated and verified. What's wrong with that?

@Arthur Brain?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

 

[Arthur Brain]

No they don't. Things don't become credible. What's credible is always credible. What's not credible is never credible.


See post #243. Try to deal rationally with the old material. So far, you have failed to do so, leaving my questions unanswered, and lying about that fact. For shame.

I have zero doubt about the fact that you're far from bored.

Things become established as credible once they've been verified if that makes it any easier for you to understand. For example, It's easily verifiable that Trump was president from 2016-2020 and that he didn't serve a second term, just as it's verifiable that Biden has been president from 2020 to the present. You've been answered but if you want to carry on wasting your time with some silly tropes and all then crack on. your time to waste after all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks for the handy template, @Arthur Brain:

mediamatters.org?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

theguardian.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

yahoo.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

Independent.co.uk?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

vice.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

yahoo.com?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

@Arthur Brain?!



Oh, hey man, you carry on...

As you'll have noticed there's no wingnut sites in there or tabloid press. Well, then again, maybe you didn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Correct. One thing Trump admitted was he was surprised to learn that the Swamp was much deeper and wider than he originally thought.

Oh dear, you still think Trump is being honest with all of this stuff don't you?

 

[7djengo7]

Things become established as credible once they've been verified

It's amusing how you simply inflate your posts with additional, vacuous verbiage when you've already failed to respond rationally to questions about your earlier raving. Now, you've burdened yourself with yet another problem: you have to tell us exactly how verifying the propostion, P, is somehow (according to your imagination) different from establishing the proposition, P. What (if anything) has one done in verifying P that he has not done in establishing P? What (if anything) has one done in establishing P that he has not done in verifying P?

it's verifiable that Biden has been president from 2020 to the present.

Then why has it never been verified?

You've been answered

It's also amusing, that formula you choose to use whenever you're lying about your failure to have answered a question someone has asked you. It's like you vainly imagine that by saying "You've been answered," instead of saying "I've answered you," or "I've answered your question," you can somehow hide your dishonesty because you left out first person reference to yourself. It's one of your tells.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's amusing how you simply inflate your posts with additional, vacuous verbiage when you've already failed to respond rationally to questions about your earlier raving. Now, you've burdened yourself with yet another problem: you have to tell us exactly how verifying the propostion, P, is somehow (according to your imagination) different from establishing the proposition, P. What (if anything) has one done in verifying P that he has not done in establishing P? What (if anything) has one done in establishing P that he has not done in verifying P?

Then why has it never been verified?

It's also amusing, that formula you choose to use whenever you're lying about your failure to have answered a question someone has asked you. It's like you vainly imagine that by saying "You've been answered," instead of saying "I've answered you," or "I've answered your question," you can somehow hide your dishonesty because you left out first person reference to yourself. It's one of your tells.

"Additional, vacuous verbiage"? After this load of stuck up waffle?

Wowzers, irony just doesn't compute with you does it?

 

[7djengo7]

Now, you've burdened yourself with yet another problem: you have to tell us exactly how verifying the propostion, P, is somehow (according to your imagination) different from establishing the proposition, P.

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

What (if anything) has one done in verifying P that he has not done in establishing P?

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

What (if anything) has one done in establishing P that he has not done in verifying P?

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

Then why has it never been verified?

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Arthur Brain]

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

@Arthur Brain: <NO ANSWER>

Wow, you must enjoy doing this garbage.

 

[7djengo7]

Wow, you must enjoy doing this garbage.

What garbage?

 

[JudgeRightly]

once they've been verified

By whom?

it's verifiable that Biden has been president from 2020 to the present

By whom?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What garbage?

What vacuous verbiage!

 

[Arthur Brain]

By whom?



By whom?

Unless you're a paranoid to the hilt conspiracy nut, then you know fine well that Biden has been the sworn in president for over three years. No time for bat crazy on that score.

I've already answered you as to where to get news from and how to corroborate it and where not to get it from as well.

 

[7djengo7]

Unless you're a paranoid to the hilt conspiracy nut, then you know fine well that Biden has been the sworn in president for over three years. No time for bat crazy on that score.

I've already answered you as to where to get news from and how to corroborate it and where not to get it from as well.

But you're a wingnut, so did you expect us to take you seriously when you emitted all that noise? Not only are you a wingnut, but you're downright cross-threaded if you actually believe we do, or would, or could, or should.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Unless you're a paranoid to the hilt conspiracy nut, then you know fine well that Biden has been the sworn in president for over three years.

False dichotomy, and you didn't answer my question.

1) No, I don't "know" that Biden has been the sworn in president for over three years. I cannot know something that is false.
2) No, I am not a "paranoid to the hilt conspiracy nut."
3) No, you have not answered me. You said:

Things become established as credible once they've been verified

I queried you on who verifies such things. You have provided no such answer.