And speaking of insults, isn't it funny, Augustino, that I can find you insulting someone:

"Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
— Mongrel
Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist."

So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you?

Sand wrote:

I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted...

Now you're lying Sand. You didn't say that until much later in an edit that happened long after this talk about insulting had already begun. I know what you originally said when I asked you...

I wrote:

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

You answered originally...

Yes, you're very wrong.

That was the original complete reply, in it's entirety...

I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were.

Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...

Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.

But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)

And then there's this little bit you said to Augustino which is a clear admission of intent to insult...

I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was...

Now, perhaps the administrators could peruse through the thread to check the timing of your multiple edits to that particular post, since you've changed it several times. Maybe not. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other...

Sand wrote:

I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted...

Now you're lying Sand. You didn't say that until much later in an edit that happened long after this talk about insulting had already begun. I know what you originally said when I asked you...

No, you're lying now, Creat, since what you said happened never happened.

I wrote:

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

You answered originally...

Yes, you're very wrong.

That was the original complete reply, in it's entirety...

I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were. Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...

That was incoherent nonsense, and I've been very consistent. .

I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were. Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...

Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.

But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)

Not only are you wrong, but your obsession with this is a bit creepy. So, I will leave you to obsess on your own and will only read posts about the thread subject.

Be well.

I have a habit of keeping more than one window open as a means to preserve posts at a certain time...

That's exactly how you got caught Sand...

What I said happened did happen, in exactly that way.

And... ...you cant' show anywhere where I insulted anyone..

Sure we can...

Remember saying this?

..I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was...

That claim admits that you insulted but only after someone else did...

Ok...

Now that that jello has been nailed to the wall...

Let's get back to the topic, shall we?

We can look at available footage of Trump talking about things at different times and clearly note self-contradiction. For instance, taking a look at how he has talked about James Comey in the past year show a remarkable amount of change in what Trump believes about Comey. That kind of talk has been accepted in American politics. It has become the norm. It is expected, none-the-less, as any number of common jokes about politicians show.

The problem, of course, is that he cannot believe all of those things that he has said, for some are mutually exclusive. That is, some of the things negate others and vice-versa. They cannot all be true. Thus, knowing that... they cannot all be believed by the same person at the same time. The only way Trump could have believed all of the different things that he said about Comey is if Trump's beliefs change on a whim. Either he is deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief, or he is very irrational. Calling him on it seems futile, because it's considered normal politician behaviour. As such, one go to defense will point to other politicians doing the same thing(saying whatever is politically convenient at the time).

I am leaning more and more towards the idea that the acceptance of that sort of behaviour comes as a direct result of people mistakenly thinking/believing that when a politician lies, little to nothing can be done about it, as a result of thinking that it cannot be proven. I mean, there are any number of different defenses for what seems to be clear cut cases of lying to the public. The go to defense, however, seems to rely upon a mistaken notion of what counts as the burden of proof in such matters... proving another's intent.

I remember when the discourse regarding Clinton's e-mails began using that standard.

Ultimately, it could not be proven that she intentionally destroyed evidence. There was no doubt that she destroyed certain devices. However, her claim was that she destroyed them as a matter of privacy protection, and that nothing destroyed was relevant to the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty. She and her attorneys was/were her own judge regarding which e-mails were germane. To prove that she intended to destroy evidence, the prosecution would have to have shown that there was something relevant on those devices.

Does that look bad? Surely. Was it illegal? Nope. The laws governing her actions weren't broken.

A look at the '08 financial meltdown also clearly shows that no laws were broken.

All of these things and more have helped lead to the common belief that truth doesn't matter...

It does not follow from the fact that things are a certain way, that they ought be.

We can look at available footage of Trump talking about things at different times and clearly note self-contradiction. For instance, taking a look at how he has talked about James Comey in the past year show a remarkable amount of change in what Trump believes about Comey. That kind of talk has been accepted in American politics. It has become the norm. It is expected, none-the-less, as any number of common jokes about politicians show.

This has been going on in America, and the rest of the world, for centuries.

The problem, of course, is that he cannot believe all of those things that he has said, for some are mutually exclusive. That is, some of the things negate others and vice-versa. They cannot all be true. Thus, knowing that... they cannot all be believed by the same person at the same time. The only way Trump could have believed all of the different things that he said about Comey is if Trump's beliefs change on a whim. Either he is deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief, or he is very irrational. Calling him on it seems futile, because it's considered normal politician behaviour. As such, one go to defense will point to other politicians doing the same thing(saying whatever is politically convenient at the time).

The actual problem is Trump is a reactionary conservative whose policies threaten our environment, our national health care, and our education system. But for some reason people would rather waste time erroneously bemoaning a "post-Trump" world or obsess on unfounded conspiracy theories.

am leaning more and more towards the idea that the acceptance of that sort of behaviour comes as a direct result of people mistakenly thinking/believing that when a politician lies, little to nothing can be done about it, as a result of thinking that it cannot be proven. I mean, there are any number of different defenses for what seems to be clear cut cases of lying to the public. The go to defense, however, seems to rely upon a mistaken notion of what counts as the burden of proof in such matters... proving another's intent.]

It's more like people know presidents have always lied and they know there is little, if anything, they can do about it.

I remember when the discourse regarding Clinton's e-mails began using that standard.

Ultimately, it could not be proven that she intentionally destroyed evidence. There was no doubt that she destroyed certain devices. However, her claim was that she destroyed them as a matter of privacy protection, and that nothing destroyed was relevant to the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty. She and her attorneys was/were her own judge regarding which e-mails were germane. To prove that she intended to destroy evidence, the prosecution would have to have shown that there was something relevant on those devices.

Hillary straight up lied to Comey about destroying evidence. And since the e-mails showed evidence she was doing arm sales at State to the same countries she was taking money from at her Clinton Foundation--whose Qatarian donors gave Bill Clinton a 1 mil birthday present--she had every reason to want to destroy them beyond just "privacy." If one has to absolutely prove one is lying to know they are lying, we are in deep trouble.

Does that look bad? Surely. Was it illegal? Nope. The laws governing her actions weren't broken.

It looks bad because she did risk security to keep her interrelated State/Clinton foundation activities hidden from others after Obama told her she needed to stop doing Foundation work at state. That looks really bad, and something doesn't have to be illegal to be bad, like when she sold uranium to Putin for 30 mil through her foundation.

A look at the '08 financial meltdown also clearly shows that no laws were broken.

That's a lie you haven't backed up at all. Many have shown how they broke laws, but the Banks were Obama's biggest donors and he let them off the hook, costing millions of Americans justice and civil suit recovery. Glenn Greenwald well details that here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

All of these things and more have helped lead to the common belief that truth doesn't matter...

No, they haven't, and you haven't backed up that lie at all.

Elizabeth Warren's assessment over the legality and/or illegality of the '08 financial collapse and how/why very few people were prosecuted is worth looking at...

Sorry, Elizabeth Warren, for all her bluster has been mostly a life-long Republican who still has bank and corporate connections and supports the Bank-loving members of the Democrats. The Greenwald/Guardian article is much more trustworthy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

You obviously have not watched Warren interrogate those involved in the matters.

I obviously have and I saw it was mostly bluster with no real penalties at all. The fact she chose to endorse Hillary Clinton--the banks good buddy--over Bernie Sanders--the banks biggest "real" critic--says everything you need to know about her commitment to fighting the banks.

Again, the article I provided by Greenwald/Guardian shows very clearly that Obama could have and should have prosecuted the banks...and why he shamefully didn't

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Get back to me when you actually read it instead of just continuing to defend the banks

One who has watched those interrogations soon finds out that there were no laws broken. Warren exposed how the banks oversaw themselves basically, and by doing so wrote the (de)regulations in ways that they could get away with doing what they did.

I read the article. It reeks of rhetoric.

Her endorsement of Clinton came after the primaries were all but over...

One who has watched those interrogations soon finds out that there were no laws broken.

No, one doesnt', only someone who was watching poorly like yourself. Greenwald's article--and Greenwald is immensely more informed than you on the matter--shows laws were clearly broken.

Warren exposed how the banks oversaw themselves basically, and by doing so wrote the (de)regulations in ways that they could get away with doing what they did.

Warren's interrogation didn't show they didn't break any laws. And Greenwald shows they did.

I read the article. It reeks of rhetoric

You're clearly lying and did not read the article in 25 minutes. And "reeks of rhetoric" is a nonsensical statement made by people who cannot address the main arguments. Of course you don't know those arguments, since you didn't read the article and couldn't name them if you tried. To prove I'm wrong, name those 5 main arguments. We both know you can't...:)

Her endorsement of Clinton came after the primaries were all but over...

No, they were not over, and that's no excuse for her not endorsing Sanders earlier if she actually cared about fighting the Banks corruption.

Here's that article again, the one you clearly never read. The one that shows you're completely wrong by an author who knows way more on the subject than you do:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Use the article to prove what you claim...

So, you have never read it. You're a pretty sad liar.

The proof is in the article for everyone to read and see how ridiculous, and dishonest, you've been.

And since you lied, and have been ridiculously wrong, I'm done reading your posts on this.

What are you talking about?

I just read it... again. I see no proof. You claim otherwise. One of us is wrong.

Use the article and show me and everyone else how it proves what you claim it does.

The Heidegger tangent is relevant due to Heiddy's use of the term "truth". In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... conceale — creativesoul

Thanks for trying, Creative. I can't see how re-defining "truth" as something like "historical belief" could be a good thing.

Who is J-anus? >:) @Janus

Thanks for trying, Creative. I can't see how re-defining "truth" as something like "historical belief" could be a good thing. — Banno

Notice, that I for one take the world to be more truthful post-Trump than pre-Trump (that's one reason why I am pro Trump). This is because Trump does openly what he does - thus it is as Creative (Heidegger) would say unconcealed. It has finally become unconcealed. The ways of politicians have been revealed openly. It has openly been revealed that they do not care about truth, whereas before they pretended that they do, and the truth was concealed by their pretension. Now there is no question.

Agustino, you dirty little man!

You should know; you are Greek, aren't you? >:O

Janus is the God of "passages" among other things. ;)

Seriously, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus

This was actually my first username when I joined the old PF: I guess I'm returning to my roots. >:)

Yeah, it has become "unconcealed" because the populace is now so jaded and indifferent to truth that such a "truth" may be revealed without much ill-effect for the politicians. We have been efficiently "divided and conquered".

I guess I'm returning to my roots. >:) — Janus

>:O I remember you had a different username, something like Threshold something. It was something starting with T at any rate.

God of "passages" — Janus

I'm returning to my roots. — Janus

>:)

Yeah, it has become "unconcealed" because the populace is now so jaded and indifferent to truth that such a "truth" may be revealed without much ill-effect for the politicians. We have been efficiently "divided and conquered". — Janus

Well after many years of giving them TV, feeding them with meaningless jobs and entertainment, and giving them that real freedom of living meaningless and pointless lives all the while making them feel as if they were truly living - shouldn't the elite get to finally relax as well? We have after all reached the fulfilment of democracy - in tyranny - for the people are finally in power! For who is Donald Trump if not as truthful as we ourselves are? He's real, he's just like we are. No pretensions. Look at what these two blonde girls say:

LOL. Sorry, not playing someone else's stupid game isn't cowardice. It's wisdom. — Thanatos Sand

Oh yeah, it's wisdom, because you would be shamed if you accepted to play my game, and you know it. Right. It is indeed wisdom, the wisdom of a coward. The point being of course that you're the only cuckoo around here who found my comments racist, but you'll not admit to that. No, you are right, even if everyone else says differently.

And speaking of insults, isn't it funny, Augustino, that I can find you insulting someone: — Thanatos Sand

I don't think the part you quoted is actually insulting. You missed one of my previous posts to Mongrel which was insulting though.

Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist." — Agustino

Notice I say her comments, not her, are stupid.
And anyway, I actually agreed that I sometimes insult, unlike you, because you are a coward, you cannot even admit to it. That's why you're pathetic. Now go hide in your hole.

Uh, oh. Augustino's having himself a meltdown.

Thanks for proving me right again by throwing around childish insults like "cuckoo" and "coward"...especially since they describe you perfectly

And calling Mongrel's comments "stupid" and saying her judgement is pathetic is also insulting. The fact you don't know that means you are the last person who should be criticizing someone else's posts.

So, the only pathetic one is you. And only someone who actually has a hole, like you, would think someone else has one. So, you must really have a lovely one. So, go get some professional help with that clear anger and delusion problem of yours. I'm pulling for you....:)

And calling Mongrel's comments "stupid" and saying her judgement is pathetic is also insulting. — Thanatos Sand

I never said her judgement is pathetic. And calling someone's comments stupid isn't an insult. If you call a comment stupid it's not the same as calling the person who wrote it stupid - the latter would be an insult, the former is a criticism.

So, the only pathetic one is you. And only someone who actually has a hole, like you, would think someone else has it. So, you must really have a lovely one. So, go get some professional help with that clear anger and delusion problem of yours. I'm pulling for you....:) — Thanatos Sand

>:O Yes man up man up! Play my game coward, or go hide under you bed. What are you waiting for - you stand to offer an apology, I stand to get banned. Let's do it. I'm not the coward here.

I remember you had a different username, something like Threshold something. It was something starting with T at any rate. — Agustino

Yes, it was 'Thresholdsun'. I couldn't sign in with 'Janus' after an extended absence wherein I had forgotten my password. So I simply created another account. Actually I had a few different usernames because i kept losing my password; and I'm kind of impatient. :)

Havin' a bit o' fun in the sandpit? ;)

Hilarious video: ah. the Americans...you gotta love 'em!

Yes, it was 'Thresholdsun'. I couldn't sign in with 'Janus' after an extended absence wherein I had forgotten my password. So I simply created another account. Actually I had a few different usernames because i kept losing my password; and I'm kind of impatient. :) — Janus

Yes, I had another account there, long ago. When I finally returned to create Agustino, I had forgotten about that one.

Havin' a bit o' fun in the sandpit? ;) — Janus

Oh, I love playing with Sand >:)

The Sand Castle constructed here in that thread was very entertaining >:)