Joe Biden's lengthy history of fabrication, plagiarism and racial controversy
By: Nicholas Ballasy
Joe Biden is a morally weak man who will do or say anything in order to try to impress voters into voting for him in spite of his misrepresentation, lies, plagiarism, and obfuscation. He’s an evil man.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In 1987, Biden said publicly that he marched during the civil rights movement but later admitted he was "not an activist" and he was "not out marching.”
Now officially the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden offered himself to Americans this week as an affable, trustworthy and experienced alternative for the White House. But his five-decade record in politics offers plenty of controversies ranging from insulting confrontations over IQ and race to fabrications and plagiarism.
An episode from the first of his three runs for president provides a case study. Biden once sparred in 1987 with a political reporter who asked him about his law school record. A tart Biden responded that he “probably” had a “higher IQ” than the reporter. And he claimed he finished in the top half of his class.
It was later revealed that Biden was near the bottom of his law school graduating class at Syracuse University's College of Law, specifically 76 out of 85 students.
Biden also admitted that he had plagiarized during his first year at the institution.
“I was mistaken, but I was not in any way malevolent,” Biden explained.
The plagiarism tag would follow him into politics. Eventually it was also revealed that Biden had used quotes in speeches as a U.S. senator from Bobby Kennedy, John F. Kennedy and Neil Kinnock, a British Labour Party leader, without any attribution .
Earlier this year, he faced plagiarism again when it was revealed his 2020 climate plan lifted some passages from other documents without attribution. The campaign corrected the error.
In 1987, Biden said he marched during the civil rights movement but some media outlets pointed out that was not the case.
“I was not an activist,” Biden explained at a news conference at the time. “I was not out marching.”
These controversies eventually forced Biden from the 1988 presidential race in September 1987.
“Although it’s awfully clear to me what choice I have to make, I have to tell you honestly I do it with incredible reluctance and it makes me angry. I’m angry with myself for having been put in the position -- put myself in the position of having to make this choice,'' Biden said.
''And I am no less frustrated at the environment of presidential politics that makes it so difficult to let the American people measure the whole Joe Biden and not just misstatements that I have made,” he added.
Biden has repeated the claim that he was involved in civil rights activism during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary on a few occasions. And his some of the most awkward apologies he’s been forced to make involve the issue of race.
During his 2008 run for president, Biden apologized for referring to his then-rival Sen. Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." It didn't go unnoticed.
While campaigning in New Hampshire, Biden told a supporter that " You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent” in Delaware.
And in May of this year, Biden told radio host Charlamagne the God, "You ain't black" if you vote against him, which sparked controversy. He later apologized for that statement too.
Exaggerations have also been flagged several times in his career.
During a presidential primary debate in 2007, for instance, Biden revealed that he had been “shot at” while visiting Iraq . When records conflicted with his account, he later changed his story.
In 2019 during Biden’s Democratic primary run, the Washington Post reported that the former vice president told a fake war story on the campaign trail. Politifact rated the story he told as false. Biden has dismissed the criticism.
In March of this year, Biden claimed he was arrested in South Africa while trying to see the anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela. His campaign later said it didn’t happen after the U.S. ambassador who was with him on the trip said the arrest story wasn't true.
Tags
Who is online
141 visitors
The hypocrisy here should be embarrassing. How can someone repeatedly heap sycophantic praise on Trump and then write this about his political opponent when it applies perfectly to Trump??
You should be equally embarrassed to support Biden on the grounds that he is somehow an honest man by comparison to Trump (or anyone for that matter).
You are presuming again. Where have I ever, anywhere, made any statement about Biden's honesty? In contrast, one could easily find statements from me about how I feel about career politicians.
You allege without facts and in spite of facts to the contrary. That is the problem that often occurs when one merely presumes.
That established, did you understand the point I made here? Look at my first comment where I explicitly quoted the seeder:
Then I supplied this commentary:
Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy here?? It does not even matter who Trump is running against; the seeder's comment almost perfectly describes the man he routinely praises.
To illustrate, let's substitute Trump into his words:
Donald Trump is a morally weak man who will do or say anything in order to try to impress voters into voting for him in spite of his misrepresentation, lies, plagiarism, and obfuscation. He’s an evil man.
The only word that might not apply is 'plagiarism' (since Trump already has the best words). And I would not call either Biden or Trump evil; leave that for the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Calm down TiG. All I am saying is that the hypocrisy goes both ways.
Why do you presume I am not calm? Because I chose to rebut your false allegation?
The problem is that you specifically named me as the target for your hypocrisy. Given you presumed facts that were flat out wrong, you falsely accused me of being a hypocrite (following your interpretation that I quoted above).
You did not argue, in general, that hypocrisy goes both ways (a general philosophical position with which I agree). Do you recognize that?
Ergo my rebuttal.
ok super
There is no hypocrisy. Biden is a worthless, brainless, and spineless POS, whose election would mean the end of America as we know it.
Your argument is ridiculous. Even if what you say is true of Biden, the hypocrisy is still there because the statement almost perfectly describes Trump who the author of the hypocrisy sycophantically praises. Biden has nothing to do with the hypocrisy here.
If someone offered this comment:
______ ______ is a morally weak man who will do or say anything in order to try to impress voters into voting for him in spite of his misrepresentation, lies, and obfuscation.
Do you actually want to claim that you do not see how well the name Donald Trump fits in those blanks? Give us all a break.
If someone who routinely extols the virtues of Trump makes the above statement about anyone else on the planet, that would be hypocritical.
You don't like Trump and are automatically biased against anything he says or does. Your opinions and criticisms can't be taken seriously.
Many millions of people of good faith and ample intelligence simply don't see the same faults and qualities about Trump as do his detractors and haters on the left.
Oh come on Greg, can you not put forth an argument on the facts? Must you instead run to make things personal?
Are you going to let my question go unanswered and thus strongly imply that you think that Trump:
Are you going to actually imply that Trump does NOT misrepresent, lie and obfuscate?
Some things are obvious.
All men and women are morally weak in someway or another. That's one of the things that make us human.
That's called being a politician. Democrat politicians are masters of prevarication.
Let's take your posits as true.
Are both of these statements true?
This seed deems these to be true for Biden but not true for his opponent. But these factors are demonstrably true for Trump (his opponent).
This is what hypocrisy looks like.
Absolutely!
Explain that to MAGA.
MAGA is entitled to his opinions, you are entitled to your opinion s and I am entitled to mine. Just because mine are normally correct is just a good coincidence.
Well of course there are. That fact is not in question. Indeed, put forth your reasons. Just make sure that the reasons you list do not also apply (and arguably better ) to the other candidate.
If both statements are true it is hypocritical to criticize candidate B on these factors and not candidate T. Especially if the critic routinely heaps praise on candidate T.
Criticism of one candidate always brings the other candidate into consideration because in an election we are comparing the two candidates.
You're a But Trumper now to? How cute.
Is that all you have to offer? The platitude rebuttal of 'But Trump ...'?
Cannot even be honest enough to acknowledge that my point is hypocrisy regarding Trump and that it is impossible to make that point without mentioning Trump?
Yes the hypocrisy is embarrassing how can someone continuously deride Trump; and then give Biden a pass for the exact same damn thing?
That mighty D behind his name doesn't change the fact he is every bit as racist, scummy, incompetent, and unfit for office as Trump is.
So why is anyone supporting either these POS?
Since you replied to me, do you think I am giving Biden a pass on this? If so, deliver your link. (Don't bother, you will be wasting your time.)
Apparently you recognize that this:
without this:
is hypocritical.
But do you recognize that this:
without this:
is hypocritical?
Do you see it goes both ways in this example? If so, you should be addressing the seeder because it is the seeder who put forth the hypocritical allegation, not me.
Non sequitur
I didnt see the speech but I heard she was screaming and too masculine.
Tig, are you still doing your both sides are the same thing ? It's getting a little late in the game for all that buddy. Dont have four more years of Trump to wonder about why it happened.
JR are you still interpreting observing factors that occur on both sides to mean that both sides are equal in all factors?
Grow some nuance.
Rest assured that comments between MAGA and myself will not impact the election in any way.
I just want Trump to lose, and so should you.
You need to learn to separate your desires from your analysis. One can actually engage in objective analysis and still have a (distinct) desired outcome. Try it some time.
I find it funny that I have been dealing almost exclusively with partisan-based 'reasoning' in this thread. Now it's coming from both sides. Partisan thinking is flawed; it leads to bad choices.
When it comes to this particular election I would rather fight than philosophize.
I know and you do it on a daily basis. I just wish you could devote a few mental cycles to understand that I am analytical in nature and prefer to try to find the truth even if the truth is not what I would prefer.
Now, in this case, I see very few options for Trump to be reelected. Anything is possible, but as each day goes by his options shrink. So you can afford to be a little less oppressive and stop complaining when some of us engage as independents. My analysis has been favoring Biden since COVID-19 hit the USA, so chill until my analysis starts moving in favor of Trump.
The "truth" is that if people continue to make Trump seem like a possible option he might win. This is a fight not a debating society.
Good grief JR you have been saying the same damn thing for at least three years now. This is a forum for discussion and debate. It is not ground-zero for a campaign. The entire NT membership could be 100% pro Trump and there would be zero difference in the results.
If you want to spend all your time bitching about Trump that is your right. But when you continue to cross the line into my space and tell me that I cannot engage in objective analysis and thus be critical of Trump AND Biden (as well as Pence and Harris), we have a problem.
I prefer trying to find and argue truth (that means objective analysis) rather than engage in sophistry to make people think a certain way. That includes admitting that Biden is a career politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected (as with Trump albeit not a career politician). Running from the truth is a great way to be wrong.
I made my point.
And you probably ignored mine.
Don't mimic better ideas, it's unbecoming.
You should have directed this to JR.
Exaggerations have also been flagged several times in his career.
In no particular order: (Not quotes from Joe Biden)
"I alone can fix it."
"I'll chose the best people for my administration."
"I have the best words."
"The deal I just made with China is, by far, the greatest and biggest deal ever made for our Great Patriot Farmers in the history of our Country."
"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall."
"I would give myself and A+."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do."
"Nobody knows more about trade than me."
"Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me."
"I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have."
"Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."
"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world."
" I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (He's been sued enough. Maybe it's true.)
"I know more about people who get ratings than anyone."
"I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor."
" I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth."
"Nobody knows banking better than I do"
"There's n obody bigger or better at the military than I am."
"There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me."
[ ]
Any many, many more. No exaggeration!
[ This comment stands. MAGA, you've been told this repeatedly. You mentioned Trump in your comments, and cannot now declare him off topic. Repeatedly doing so may result in suspension of your flagging privileges. ]
What does any of that have to do with Biden?
Oh! I get it! You can defend him so you bring out the but Trump propaganda.
This is joe Biden in a nutshell:
before Bork’s nomination:
”'Say the administration sends up Bork and, after our investigations, he looks a lot like Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the {special-interest} groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take.”
Of course, once the special interest groups pressured him, he folded like a cheap suit and led the attack on Bork on idealogical grounds. There’s no there, there except craven oppurtunism.
Biden has plenty of faults.
Tell me that you do not find the following to apply perfectly to Trump (other than plagiarism):
Donald Trump is a morally weak man who will do or say anything in order to try to impress voters into voting for him in spite of his misrepresentation, lies, plagiarism, and obfuscation.
That is still a Trump fault, Melania Trump.
I think trump and Biden are very similar people.
If so then you why would you not agree that the seeder is being entirely hypocritical praising Trump while criticizing Biden with allegations that almost perfectly describe Trump?
That can be said of any Biden supporter who criticizes trump for those characteristics as well.
Indeed, if there was a Biden supporter who routinely extols the virtues of Biden, presenting him as a man of great honesty, who does not behave like a career politician who will say whatever it takes to get a vote, and then turns around and promotes an article alleging Trump is dishonest and will say anything to get elected, then that would be hypocritical.
So we agree on the hypothetical.
This seed, however, is an example of this very blatant hypocrisy. Do you recognize that?
Truly pathetic that this is the best rebuttal you can muster.
Your comment was pure hypocrisy. It does not matter if you were talking about Biden or Mickey Mouse, the hypocrisy is that you have attacked an individual with allegations that almost perfectly apply to Trump — an individual you routinely and sycophantically praise.
If someone were to offer this language:
______ ______ is a morally weak man who will do or say anything in order to try to impress voters into voting for him in spite of his misrepresentation, lies, and obfuscation.
I would bet most people would think the author is talking about Trump. To not see that is to be blind to objective reality. I doubt that you cannot comprehend how this applies to Trump. Ergo, I conclude blatant hypocrisy.
The seed is about Biden, not Trump...in spite of your best efforts to turn it around.
Here we go with the Hail Mary 'But Trump' platitude rebuttal.
It is so revealing when someone refuses to even acknowledge the obvious. I suspect I am not the only one to see that you cannot bring yourself to admit that Trump is morally weak, will do or say anything to try to impress voters into voting for him and routinely misrepresents, lies and obfuscates.
One cannot make such a claim about anyone else and then turn around and praise Trump. That is blatant hypocrisy.
Face the facts, the only way one can make a good decision in life is to accept the truth even if distasteful and make subsequent informed (vs. emotional) choices.
Truly, this seed is not about Trump and you do keep bringing him up. That does not engage with the subject of the seed, which is Biden, after all. It's not as if we have a shortage of Trump seeds.
I am bringing up the hypocrisy. And I am not going to explain this yet again because I am absolutely certain that you know exactly what I have been stating.
Why you refuse to recognize that, however, is another matter.
Nor is there a shortage of conservatives bringing up Biden and/or Obama in those Trump seeds.
Goose/Gander...
And yet the seeder chose to put a picture of Trump next to a pic of Biden, did he not?
And yet the seeder introduced as a comment, a second seed by Dr M Brown which mentions Trump and the current Administration.
And yet you yourself have made comments about Mr. Trump in this very seed.
But you do have some on topic comments...
Spoken like the reasonable, sensible adult you are, eh?
I recognize it just fine, but the criticism that you are basically engaging in whataboutism vis a vis Trump is legitimate. The article is about Biden.
And seeders frequently try to reel people in and get them to stay on topic. At least you agree with me about what TiG was doing. That's kind of nice.
You are being ridiculous, it is impossible to note the hypocrisy of this seed without mentioning Trump since that is the nature of the hypocrisy.
Uh huh. That's thoughtful.
That's fine. Can you talk about Biden without talking about Trump? I mean we've hit the Trump thing. Are you going to weigh in on Biden at all?
Not when I am illustrating the hypocrisy of criticizing Biden with factors that fit his opponent.
Nope, not here. I am going to focus on the hypocrisy since you and others are trying to deflect attention away from it.
Well that's a dishonest claim. I have acknowledged the hypocrisy. @2.3.2. And I am not trying to deflect attention away from anything in particular. All I did was acknowledge a legitimate criticism.
I also found a way to discuss Biden on his own. @5
It seems to me that if all you want to talk about is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters, then you are the one who is deflecting attention away from the topic of the seed.
Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.
Don't try to put your unworthy words in my mouth.
The only claim I have made here is hypocrisy. If you agree then there is no need to engage in the sideshow of trying to portray my point as anything other than that.
Note that after my first observation of hypocrisy, my remaining comments are all in response to individuals trying to deflect away from the hypocrisy.
You are continuing this pattern. If you acknowledge the hypocrisy then we should be done, right?
How can pointing out the hypocrisy in a wholly hypocritical seed possibly deflect from it?
Me? A liberal? LOL
This is another illustration of how stereotyping is a great way to get things wrong.
Okay, I think you should stop making me the subject now. Especially given your allegations are false.
Neither candidate is desirable IMO. But this is what we have to choose from. At least with Biden we would have an adult in the office who would respect the office enough to behave as a PotUS.
Do some research. Biden is rather rare in that he did not amass much of a fortune as a politician. He has, however, made a ton of money after leaving office in 2016 on book deals, etc. So it looks like you are just making shit up. Presuming?
Yeah, quite the pussy grabber who has his 'black' there. Looks like you are just tossing out derogatory allegations ... maybe you have Biden and Trump confused.
Well, again, if you do not state what you mean by 'socialism' your comment is ambiguous.
While one could make a case to suspect that is possible, you have made no such case. You have simply emoted. This comment could easily come from a wild man on a street corner screaming into a megaphone citing conspiracy theories.
Make a case, MAGA, don't just spout ugly allegations.
You are trying to push dishonesty on the other side with Trump running??
Hey MAGA, if dishonesty is a critical issue for you, why on Earth are you supporting Trump (praising Trump even)?
For some reason gaslighting comes to mind.
Well that is as good an explanation as any.
One tin soldier rides away.
He has been lying, making up stories, and being nasty to anyone who challenges him for his entire career. And his supporters don't care because they don't have a better alternative.
Indeed
It is not a question of not caring. It really does boil down to the fact that one must make a choice between Trump and Biden.
That should be obvious.
Your comment could be made more correct. Here is how I would fix it:
And his supporters
don't careput up with it because they don't have a better alternative.It is Trump or Biden. No matter which way you go there are pros and cons. The fact that one makes a choice does not mean that one necessarily does not care about the cons of their choice.
But when making the choice, I would recommend not being hypocritical when analyzing the opponent.
That's fine. That's how we ended up with Trump. If he gets reelected, it will be because the Democratic Party lacked the courage to let someone else get the nomination. Someone the voters were actually excited about. It's clear to me that they basically ordered the more popular and energetic candidates to drop out.
If you think about it, defaulting to the more famous and established politician is the ultimate in conservative moves.
Sure, minimizing change is one of the defining characteristics of conservatism.
I think it was more that they did not support them. This is a fundamental problem with our parties and the lack of campaign reform laws. Our parties (both of them) seem to pick the person(s) who should be now taking their 'turn'. I remember when Bob Dole got the nomination. Talk about: 'it was his turn'. The V.P.s tend to automatically rise to the top of the 'turn' list. Now fast forward to 2008 when McCain took his 'turn'. Hillary also took her 'turn' then but Obama just blew past her with his charisma. In 2016 it was Jeb's turn but Trump took him out. But 2016 was Hillary's 'turn' redux so she was nominated. Now it is Biden's 'turn'.
If one has the impression that the electorate is not really presented with a uniform set of good candidates and that the candidate with the 'turn' has forces unseen that gives them net advantage in the primaries, then I submit one is not imagining this.
Yes, they have gotten into the habit of tapping the Senate (or ex-VPs who used to be Senators) and I think that keeps everything very partisan. I much prefer governors. Even though they usually are members of one of the parties, they are not part of the Washington machine and they have experience as an executive who must work with both parties to reach compromise. Their experience has been more about getting things done as opposed to keeping the other side at bay. Governor is basically President-lite. That's my theory, anyway.
We had a nice little string of ex-governors for a while. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.
I much prefer governors too. And for the very reasons you stated. Indeed in 2016 I favored Kasich.
Wow. Something we agree on. I voted for him in the primary. I've never voted in a Republican primary because I was always a Democrat. But I registered as Republican just special for 2016 (and then went back to no party affiliation). For all the good it did me.
He was the only adult in the room IMO.
I like Dr. Carson but I do not favor someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and who denies evolution. IMO a person as educated as Dr. Carson who holds YEC views is far too biased by faith and I thus question his ability to always make rational decisions as PotUS.
Why because he believes in creationism?
Why must I always break things down for a select group here?
I stated my reasons in blue. Did you read them?
Your quote shows Dr. Carson denying speciation (what some call macro-evolution). He is denying what is one of the most highly corroborated theories of science. This is not denying some opinion, it is going against multi-disciplinary scientific evidence that has been accumulated over the past 150 years of research. And now with DNA and the science of genetics cross-verifying, the idea of denying speciation is patently absurd.
Note also that Creationism and Evolution are held together by plenty of Christians. What they do is accept the obvious science and hold that God created original life on the planet which then evolved. Some, have the odd view that everything on the planet evolved except for human beings who were created directly 'in God's image'.
Those who hold that God created life (i.e. God created the cell) are inserting God as the answer to the question: "where did life come from?". This is a field of science that has not matured to the level of evolution. Abiogenesis needs more work so there is a big gap wherein to insert God and that is what is being done.
Dr. Carson believing that God created life does not bother me. What bothers me is what I wrote. It bothers me that a person who necessarily had to be educated in biology could disregard the almost irrefutable scientific evidence and actually hold instead to a religious notion as the more accurate truth.
I didn't. He came across as pretty dishonest and unaware of his own shortcomings. He also seemed like an "I got mine, screw you" sort of guy when it came to public assistance.
but rejected claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. from my seed
He does not deny evolution..
And really.
How dare a conservative challenge TIG. What are you breaking down. That I tried to educate you on Dr Carsons positions TIG? Just keep spewing your left wing talking points then, doesn't mean they are true.
Popeye's armed robbery ring a bell? I mean, I can understand why he'd want to remember it incorrectly, at best, considering that telling the gunman with the gun supposedly in Carson's ribs to aim at someone else instead (his story) is not exactly admirable, but it was probably best just to not bring it up at all.
In addition to that, he sure is in love with himself.
It is difficult to be a Young Earth Creationist and not believe in a young Earth:
The main reason I dismissed Carson back then was due to his jaw-dropping beliefs that contradict science with which he should be very familiar.
Accepting 'micro-evolution' but not 'macro-evolution' is denying the theory of evolution.
The parts in blue . You presumed I dismissed Carson because he believes in creation. I made no comment about creation in my comment but I did actually state my reasons. So I broke down my comment to see if you would then recognize the reasons I had offered. Here is my comment again:
See what is in blue . My comment stated my reasons and nowhere did I state that I rejected Carson because he believed in creation. Every PotUS thus far has declared that he believed in creation so obviously if one were to dismiss a candidate who claims to believe in creation, one would dismiss all nominees from both parties.
And I showed an article to the contrary from the time period in which I made my decision.
If Dr. Carson has changed his mind then I would applaud him for the growth. And if he never believed in a 6,000 year old Earth (or a young Earth) then it is a shame that the reporting got that wrong. We can only go by what is out there. But it is also pretty much impossible to literally be a YEC and not believe in a young Earth.
I have looked into this and have found more places where Dr. Carson declares that he does not support a 6,000 year old Earth. So I will now revise my opinion of him on that point.
But in this research, I was also reminded of other factors which contributed to Dr. Carson falling out of favor with me:
That, too. Jesus preached humility. Carson skipped that lecture.
Still totally ignoring what I posted to sell the LWTP.
FWI I don't believe in creationism. Now if you want to inform me what created the big bang have at her.
Oh there are a lot of reasons i don't like him. number one he is to religious for me.
The only person ignoring what we are writing is you. You quoted me acknowledging the possibility that Carson never believed in a 6,000 year old Earth. Hello? Do you even read what you quote?
You are so focused trying to play ideological games that you flat out ignore when I accept a point you make??
Dr. Carson had and does still have some very strange ideas based on religious beliefs in spite of what he should know based on his education. That, as I noted earlier, convinced me that his thought process has too much reliance on faith and not on objective evidence. Ergo, I dismissed him as a candidate for PotUS.
Science does not know what took place in the Planck epoch (the first 10-44seconds) of the Big Bang. But it has a very solid understanding of how the universe evolved from that point. Unlike religious thinking where human beings just invent their own facts, science will state when it does not know.
Now what does this have to do with anything we are 'discussing'?
Wow TIG are you that obtuse? Not once but twice you stated he believed the Earth is 6000 years old. Not once did I quote you acknowledging that the 'possibility'
he never believed that. Go ahead and highlight that in blue.
Always spinning peoples comments.
Have a good night.
I have to wonder what makes people behave like this.
You quoted me noting:
As part of this full quote from me:
Yet right after you quote where I clearly acknowledge that Dr. Carson might not have ever believed in a 6,000 year old Earth you claim that I am ignoring what you posted.
It is incredible watching the level of intellectual dishonesty people will stoop to. And then you ironically label me obtuse. And that I am the one spinning comments.
What does such dishonesty accomplish?
Truly amazing.
So now you are back to your evolution is pseudoscience nonsense ... but with a twist.
I am going to let those words deliver their own facepalm.
I am going to let those words deliver their own facepalm.
A facepalm and an eyeroll.
There isn't enough mustard on the planet to cover your pretzel logic.
Except that evolution has mountains of supporting empirical evidence, is the foundation of the biological sciences, and is the best explanation of biodiversity, with nothing to refute it in the least. Unlike your imaginary god/devil which has no empirical evidence whatsoever and explains absolutely nothing, but is rather a failure to explain while appealing to emotion!
I just gave myself so many facepalms, it felt like I was bitch-slapping myself.
Except he can't prove it, much less discredit Darwin's works and evolution itself. In fact, neither can you! Evolution has only been reinforced and accepted by scientists, intellectuals, and rational minded individuals over time.
Same here. He charged taxpayers $31,000 for a new dining table for his office. He also charged taxpayers $165,000 on lounge furniture for HUD's DC offices. He said he wasn't responsible for the expenditures because his wife, Candy, did all the re-decorating and furniture ordering and didn't keep him informed as to cost, etc. Trump appointee Rae Oliver Thomas, OIG for HUD, cleared Carson of wrong-doing. What a surprise.
He also seemed like an "I got mine, screw you" sort of guy when it came to public assistance.
Another graduate of Trump U.
Okay! I will leave that to the Democrats. They have more experience doing that anyway. They are the pros of hypocrisy!
Where are the rest of the comments on this seed?
Again I ask, where is comment thread #6 - #7?
We are investigating problems with the threading system. I am sorry for any inconvenience.
btw, do you remember who was on these threads?
Yes.
Please email me, since this is the resurrected thread.