Are we sure does not deserve your keeping your word. He or she would turn on you or any of us in a snap. You are much too valuable in our fight to save our children. We and the children need you.
You have no concept of honor or of keeping your word. It's has nothing to do with me. LA_Trump understands this. It's about who you are as a person. If you can't accept the terms, don't agree to the offer. If he required and equal bet that I leave if Trump addressed pizzagate, I would have gladly accepted those terms.
You can't claim to be honest, if you create categories of people it's OK to lie to.
By the way, I took a similar bet and honored it in the long ago past.
"You have no concept of honor or of keeping your word."
AreWeSure coming in hot and heavy with the hypocrisy. Epic. Hey AreWeSure will you FINALLY address the issues with the Clinton Foundation vis a vis a Charity vs a Financial Audit?
This will jog your memory:
"we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients"
How do you know the money goes to the AIDS patients?
I already know your answer: "Because there was a Charity Audit.". But AreWeSure a charity audit is less rigorous than a Financial Audit which has to go to ground with all the money. A Charity Audit doesn't pierce the veil of a limited partnership. If you want to keep all the money people gave Bono to help AIDS patients for yourself just create a limited partnership to hide a theft. Call it "Bono's Limited Partnership for AIDS Relief." Then keep the money and try not to laugh when the charity auditor comes around.
Charity auditor: "How much did you give to AIDS patients?".
CFO at the Limited Partnership holding back laughter: "All of it."
Charity auditor: "Ok, that's good enough for me. Thanks for your time."
Bono to CFO at the Limited Partnership: "How much of the money I raised went to AIDS relief?"
CFO at the Limited Partnership really struggling now to hold back an uncontrollable urge to laugh hysterically: "All of it."
Bono: "Great. Thanks for your time."
And done. You now have stolen 98% of the money meant for Haitian Earthquake victims AIDS patients.
AreWeSure the problem is you didn't know there are different types of audits. Well Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs DOES know there are different types of audits. So does retired banker Charles Ortel and author Peter Schweitzer who wrote "Clinton Cash".
Do you see what's going on? At this point if you are a "Reasonable Person" you will concede this point. You will say "You know what I don't know if the money actually went to AIDS patients or Haitian Earthquake victims. I'm going to finally watch Clinton Cash to see if there is any other evidence."
But you won't do that AreWeSure because you aren't a "Reasonable Person" in the eyes of the law.
If you want to an idiot and claim that the Clinton foundation stole money with evidence of such go right ahead. If you want to make up numbers like 98% of donations for Haiti. If you want to cite debunked fraud, Peter Schweitzer go right ahead. If you want to cite Jeffrey Sachs without acknowledging he both had long term ideological hostility to the Clintons AND had his experiment in African development that failed significantly, go right ahead. And that his approach which he swore would be successful in five years was supposed to show the development community they were all doing it wrong. You might as well ignore the fact that he was part of the Sanders campaign as well.
Charles Ortel? The guy who claimed the GM bailout failed? Funny, I'm pretty sure they sold a record 10 million cars last year. They seem to be doing OK. The guy who claimed 2015 would see a crash greater than the Great Depression? Why would you pay attention to that guy?
So feel free to cite any of them, but don't expect me to respond every time you do this Gish Gallop. Especially when you have a history of not addressing evidence. I can't even get you to acknowledge the truth on straightforward scientific facts, (you still are making claims about molten steel for example)
In fact, if you cite Peter Schweitzer, you are happily referencing a fraud. A fraud who was forced to admit on the day of his book's publication he had zero evidence of any quid pro quo after 256 pages of trying his hardest to find one. Schwietzer earns his money from Steve Bannon and the Mercers, he is miles from a neutral source.
Money going to AIDS patients?
Our ruling
Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs.
If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program. We rate this claim True.
That's all great AreWeSure. I'm glad you got that off your chest. Now please acknowledge that a Charity Audit doesn't "go to ground" on any of the money and therefor it's impossible for you to claim there is no evidence of wrong doing at the Clinton Foundation. Remember? A Charity Audit can't pierce the veil of a Limited Partnership and therefor invites the opportunity to hide malfeasance.
You can't absolve the Clinton Foundation with the results of a fake audit. Nor can you deny Charles Ortel's evidence.
Let's review another part the Scientific Method: The Truth doesn't rely on where someone went to school, where they worked, what mistakes they made in the past. In fact Richard Feynman actually defined the entire field of Scientific Endeavor with:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
That means every hypothesis is equally considered irregardless of origin. It's actually quite refreshing don't you think? Your hypothesis is valid, my hypothesis is valid, everyone gets a say in Science.
So whenever you see someone(that's you) dismissing evidence because so and so does such and such and had 3 hypothesis disproved it's usually a sign they have a very week argument. In fact if someone has been wrong in the past it could be seen as proof they're MORE likely to be right next instead of wrong. If someone was right ALL THE TIME then you'd get suspicious.
view the rest of the comments →
carmencita ago
Are we sure does not deserve your keeping your word. He or she would turn on you or any of us in a snap. You are much too valuable in our fight to save our children. We and the children need you.
Are_we_sure ago
LOL.
You have no concept of honor or of keeping your word. It's has nothing to do with me. LA_Trump understands this. It's about who you are as a person. If you can't accept the terms, don't agree to the offer. If he required and equal bet that I leave if Trump addressed pizzagate, I would have gladly accepted those terms.
You can't claim to be honest, if you create categories of people it's OK to lie to.
By the way, I took a similar bet and honored it in the long ago past.
DarkMath ago
"You have no concept of honor or of keeping your word."
AreWeSure coming in hot and heavy with the hypocrisy. Epic. Hey AreWeSure will you FINALLY address the issues with the Clinton Foundation vis a vis a Charity vs a Financial Audit?
This will jog your memory:
"we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients"
How do you know the money goes to the AIDS patients?
I already know your answer: "Because there was a Charity Audit.". But AreWeSure a charity audit is less rigorous than a Financial Audit which has to go to ground with all the money. A Charity Audit doesn't pierce the veil of a limited partnership. If you want to keep all the money people gave Bono to help AIDS patients for yourself just create a limited partnership to hide a theft. Call it "Bono's Limited Partnership for AIDS Relief." Then keep the money and try not to laugh when the charity auditor comes around.
And done. You now have stolen 98% of the money meant for
Haitian Earthquake victimsAIDS patients.AreWeSure the problem is you didn't know there are different types of audits. Well Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs DOES know there are different types of audits. So does retired banker Charles Ortel and author Peter Schweitzer who wrote "Clinton Cash".
Do you see what's going on? At this point if you are a "Reasonable Person" you will concede this point. You will say "You know what I don't know if the money actually went to AIDS patients or Haitian Earthquake victims. I'm going to finally watch Clinton Cash to see if there is any other evidence."
But you won't do that AreWeSure because you aren't a "Reasonable Person" in the eyes of the law.
:-D
@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner
Are_we_sure ago
If you want to an idiot and claim that the Clinton foundation stole money with evidence of such go right ahead. If you want to make up numbers like 98% of donations for Haiti. If you want to cite debunked fraud, Peter Schweitzer go right ahead. If you want to cite Jeffrey Sachs without acknowledging he both had long term ideological hostility to the Clintons AND had his experiment in African development that failed significantly, go right ahead. And that his approach which he swore would be successful in five years was supposed to show the development community they were all doing it wrong. You might as well ignore the fact that he was part of the Sanders campaign as well. Charles Ortel? The guy who claimed the GM bailout failed? Funny, I'm pretty sure they sold a record 10 million cars last year. They seem to be doing OK. The guy who claimed 2015 would see a crash greater than the Great Depression? Why would you pay attention to that guy?
So feel free to cite any of them, but don't expect me to respond every time you do this Gish Gallop. Especially when you have a history of not addressing evidence. I can't even get you to acknowledge the truth on straightforward scientific facts, (you still are making claims about molten steel for example)
In fact, if you cite Peter Schweitzer, you are happily referencing a fraud. A fraud who was forced to admit on the day of his book's publication he had zero evidence of any quid pro quo after 256 pages of trying his hardest to find one. Schwietzer earns his money from Steve Bannon and the Mercers, he is miles from a neutral source.
Money going to AIDS patients?
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/
DarkMath ago
That's all great AreWeSure. I'm glad you got that off your chest. Now please acknowledge that a Charity Audit doesn't "go to ground" on any of the money and therefor it's impossible for you to claim there is no evidence of wrong doing at the Clinton Foundation. Remember? A Charity Audit can't pierce the veil of a Limited Partnership and therefor invites the opportunity to hide malfeasance.
You can't absolve the Clinton Foundation with the results of a fake audit. Nor can you deny Charles Ortel's evidence.
Let's review another part the Scientific Method: The Truth doesn't rely on where someone went to school, where they worked, what mistakes they made in the past. In fact Richard Feynman actually defined the entire field of Scientific Endeavor with:
That means every hypothesis is equally considered irregardless of origin. It's actually quite refreshing don't you think? Your hypothesis is valid, my hypothesis is valid, everyone gets a say in Science.
So whenever you see someone(that's you) dismissing evidence because so and so does such and such and had 3 hypothesis disproved it's usually a sign they have a very week argument. In fact if someone has been wrong in the past it could be seen as proof they're MORE likely to be right next instead of wrong. If someone was right ALL THE TIME then you'd get suspicious.
Ah-hem
It's kind of like how you're right all the time. You've never made an error while you've been here. It's remarkable.
:-D