In breaking news, SCOTUS has ruled 7-2 not to hear Texas case, based on standing. Giuliani is keen to take the cases to a district court, but the road is longer and means deadlines may be missed. It is still possible Biden is not elected through voter fraud, but it is more likely he will be. Notably, all three Trump appointments voted against hearing the case. The issue will have to be addressed eventually.
How will Swing states argue Texas lawsuit? Will they ask for a safe space from questions? Will they stand their ground and say that they embody the constitution and what they have done, they have done? To date, despite the clear evidence of voter fraud in millions of ballots, left wing media have refused to address the issue. The Texas lawsuit does not rest on voter fraud. Texans who voted have had their votes devalued by unlawful and unjust voting practice ostensibly established as COVID protection. Statistics up to June regarding the politics of COVID was stark. COVID kills left wing peoples in numbers an order of magnitude greater than conservatives. Some have said that is because lockdowns, face masks etc etc aren't effective against that kind of 'flu, but simple hygiene measures left wingers resist are effective. But left wingers know it is because COVID is very political. We don't yet know how SCOTUS might act. Will they direct the states to remedy via their own mechanism in legislature? Had the shoe been on the other foot, what would Ginsburg have done?
PJ Media, balanced reporting group, have published an article claiming that the 2020 election was likely not fraudulently drawn, but a result of big tech creating a new lobby effort which institutionalises bias. It is true that big tech have done just that. However, Trump over-performed in the election forcing a Dem cabal to resort to voter fraud and it wasn't finessed as it had been in the past. In fact, it is obvious. Circumstantial evidence points to Biden not being popular at all, and not outperforming Obama by tens of millions. Circumstantial evidence points to it being unlikely 16.7% of counties favouring Biden elected him President, even with up to 350% of votes in a voting area favouring Biden. We have testimony of late postal votes being delivered over state lines in their hundreds of thousands. We know the vote system was vulnerable to outside influence and that checks and balances ensuring a fair election were removed. We know the fraud was prepared in advance, multi pronged, with the COVID health scare employed to overturn voting regulations ensuring fairness. We know voters favoured GOP in down votes on Senate and the house. Trump won fairly. Biden is attempting to steal the election, as Hillary attempted in 2016 with the Russia hoax, for which she has not served jail time, yet.
Is COVID hysteria entirely so China can influence the US election outcome? Were the lockdowns in Europe and Australia so that US states could claim a state of emergency and allow for dysfunctional voting procedure? Is it the case that people have died as a result of COVID hysteria, while the worst affected by COVID are not dying in the same numbers as they were pre-COVID?
There are reports on a Lt General McInerney claiming the Dominion server which was used to change votes and 'elect' Biden has been seized from a CIA site in Germany. Some US soldiers died. Details will be privy to SCOTUS. If true, several significant peoples on Democrat side face treason accusations. Several Deep State operatives face treason accusations. Could the first 'black President' of the United States face justice for his crimes? NB AFP fact check denies claim.
How did #FakeNews predict a blue wave from 16.7% of counties favouring Biden? How did they measure voter fraud? How come #FakeNews is now unaware of voter fraud? Is it now the case that Democrat tactics are to force SCOTUS to make a decision so they can then claim SCOTUS is compromised?
The evidence of Fraud in the 2020 election, so widespread is harmful for democracy. It must be addressed. It was not solely the 2020 election, apparently, but had failed in 2016 after Trump over performed then, as he has now. Trump was so good in 2020, that the fraud became evident. It also highlights the possibility that voter fraud extended to 2006 and underpinned Obama's rise. As did big tech collusion. Recently, every one of my browsers would not let me access MAGAbook, citing privacy concerns.
We know who voted for Trump. We saw them. Queues of people with hats and signs and cheering Trump in their thousands all over USA. We have not seen people in great numbers who supported Biden. There is no evidence they have ever existed outside of a riot or a hissy fit by a Democrat partisan election official.
I watch Dan Bongino on Rumble and heard him on his Rumble cast say Trump should have addressed disloyal swamp creatures sooner. I disagree with it, and might have egg all over my face soon for saying so, but following is my reasoning. Trump has temporised on facing some of the swamp, not hesitated. Late last year, Trump said he was pulling troops out of Syria and was criticised for it severely. But then an ISIS leader stood up and special forces ran him to committing suicide rather than be taken. The operation, a sting masterminded by Trump had not included significant figures within his administration, and sparked a resignation of National Security Adviser Bolton, who had not been in the loop. Imagine the resistance if Trump had opposed more? But now, if Trump politically survives this, the swamp is exposed and has no support from conservatives. I'm reminded of former Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett who had led a successful conservative government and had a crash or crash through election which he lost. Had Kennett won, he had clear air for a long time, but having lost Victoria is where the US will be if Biden is allowed to cheat a win.
Trump cycle has it Trump is on his knees, before ... Media is cheering expected partisan court decisions to not support inquiry into voting fraud. However, they overstate the meaning of the shortfalls. The Trump campaign to have their electoral win restored was never going to be straightforward. They have the evidence. It points to multiple elections and undermines the credibility of US Democracy. Ultimately, aspects of it will be decided by SCOTUS. We do not yet know how SCOTUS will decide, or even what exact evidence they will face. But we know the evidence is substantial, and in an effort to suppress the will of conservative resistance, media are claiming that the evidence is not substantive and so the evidence is yet to be addressed. Maybe there is a good reason for a CIA asset being deployed to fraudulently control the US election. Let us hear what it is.
It is apparent that Dems committed fraud to steal the 2020 election. They may well have done similar in 2016. In 2016, Fox declared Pennsylvania early to HRC. The demand was made for Trump to concede. Trump won in 2016, but it surprised the establishment that did similar in their voter suppression as they have done in 2020. HRC had organised a victory party, but blessed marching vagina instead. Even her book did not say what happened. Trump has been very good at mobilising ordinary, decent Americans to support him in numbers greater than any GOP ever. Trump does not court race, or gender, like his racist, bigoted opposition have. Yet Trump has extraordinary minority support for a GOP, possibly the highest since Eleanor Roosevelt courted the Black vote as her husband exploited them. The Dem voting pattern and issues echo the Obama wins too. How long have Dems been using these fraudulent methods to obtain votes? Did they use them to bodgy the 2006 mid terms? It is not that the mysterious support of vapour for Dems is so clearly fraudulent, but, other than violent rioters, and #FakeNews, where is their support, really? How come there is no policy platform for Democrats? Why does Big Tech have to censor the truth? How many millions of Trump supporting votes have been given to Biden? The corruption is so apparent, and so pervasive, that if Trump concedes 2020, he will be conceding all elections that follow, and the flame of liberty will be extinguished in America.
===
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/cruz-biden-senate-confirm/2020/12/11/id/1001151/?oRef=mixi
===
In this episode, I discuss the deeply troubling efforts to hide the biggest scandal in modern times, and the now undeniable impacts on the 2020 election.
News Picks:
- Pennsylvania legislators file a brief in support of Texas election lawsuit.
- Adam Schiff is suspiciously quiet about Eric Swalwell.
- Dictionary dot com is now fully in the tank with the radical left.
- The lib media blackout of the Hunter Biden story may have tipped the election.
- California Democrats push to abolish ICE.
Flashback: Biden Says Hunter “Has Not Made Money in China”
Georgia GOP Chair on Runoffs: We’re Trusting No One on Voting Process
Rep. Swalwell Spoke at 2013 Event That Featured Chinese Spy Who Worked for Diane Feinstein
Minority Leader McCarthy Demands FBI Briefing on Swalwell Spy Scandal
Jim Jordan: Investigation Needed to Get to the Bottom of “All the Strange Things” About the Election
President Trump Asks Ted Cruz to Present Election Case to SCOTUS
Vanquished California Democrats Already Filing for 2022 House Rematches
Democrats Will Hold Their Smallest House Majority Since 1893
Obama Won His First Campaign for State Senate by Disqualifying Ballots and Signatures
Weekday Poll (Rasmussen) – December 11: Trump Approval at 49%
Swamp Watch
Judge Disqualifies St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner From McCloskey Case
Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against Government Agents Who Used No Fly List as Punishment
Former Intelligence Officials Say China Likely Has Thousands of ‘Honey Pot’ Spies
Hunter Biden Investigation Will Expose the Biden’s China Ties
Swalwell Stonewalls on Spy Scandal
Email Provided to FBI Indicates Hunter Biden Hasn’t Paid Taxes on Some Burisma Payments
Michael Flynn: I’ve Seen Corruption Up Close and Personal – And I See It In Our Current Election
Project Veritas Exposes Jon Ossoff’s Political Director Admitting to Dem Court-Packing Scheme
Crazy Nancy on Swalwell/Chinese Spy Report: Nothing to See Here
Culture Wars
Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Ban Biological Men From Women’s Sports
Melinda Gates “Incredibly Disappointed” That Americans Will Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First
CA Dems Pressure Biden, Congress to Eliminate ICE
Rose McGowan Agrees with Mathhew McConaughy: The Hollywood Liberal Elite is Condescending and Patronizing
Time Names Biden and Harris as its Person of the Year in Gushing Tribute
Department of Education Launches “Free-Speech Hotline” to Combat Campus Censorship
Media Begins Making Excuses for its Hunter Biden Cover Up
Limbaugh: “We’re Trending Toward Secession”
Murderer Brandon Bernard Executed by Federal Government
===
People agree our politicians are overpaid in Australia. They say that politicians need to be paid less. But if our politicians are so well off, why are they so awful? How would taking money away from the few good politicians benefit Australia? How could ruining industry and ratcheting up power prices get bilateral support, but something family friendly like maternity leave get so little?
Allegedly, paying teachers, police, firies, healthcare workers more produces better employees
The Rich Man and Lazarus
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:19-31&version=NIV
===
As a child the words of the song "Cats in the Cradle" resonated for me. I was estranged with my dad from birth until his death. My parents had separated before I was born, but got back together when I was five to support my sick sister Pamela until she died when I was eleven. I was frightened of this man, and used to cry which would make him more frightening. After my parents divorced I spoke to a court appointed member regarding his beatings of me, and that soured things later. He stopped beating me with his second wife on the scene, but he disowned me too. On one occasion, in my twenties, he indirectly apologized, explaining that he couldn't help himself. His last words to me were to tell me he wasn't interested in anything I was doing. I smiled and called back for him to 'stay in touch.'
===
I don't want people to feel that he was anything other than a compassionate man who worshipped reason. He loved me, although he struggled to like me. He attended fellowship in the presbyterian church as a teenager, as children of his generation did. But as a young man he rejected God, although it was clear from his discussions on the matter he was aware of the subtleties of grace and forgiveness, more so than many faithful. He may have embraced God in his later years, but never did he say this to me. I became a committed Christian when I was 18. Yet although we may appear to be theologically polar opposites, our positions had been similar. I was raised an atheist and the story of Christ's miracles (or the apostles or those that followed) left me uninterested. I didn't care for the resurrection except in symbolic terms. My conversion happened when I began to accept that god was possible, and not this miraculous figure spoken of by those my father ridiculed. And even then, it was the story of Jesus at Gethsemany that finally convicted me. I now attend a pentecostal church and I love God. I recognize I may say things that other Christians disagree with, but I may respectfully ignore them, in similar terms as Global warming scientists are still called scientists by other scientists.
My father was a great man who lead a life anyone would be proud to call their own. He was willing to fight for what was right, and many children around the world benefit from his work today. As ridiculous as Rudd's Education Revolution is, and shambolic, yet still there is an echo of one of my father's gifts to the world of education as students network computers. He was inspirational and students of his, some from the mid fifties, maintained life long friendships.
He died of a heart attack at a good age. He had gone to play bridge, (a game he adored) at a club. He was sick in his later years, but he always retained his quick intelligence, his humor to the very end. I have not covered all that I may wish, perhaps others will touch on other important things. But I want to ask those who do not know who God is, what it is this compassionate, reasonable man might say if he were to speak to us now. Knowing, from death, about what is important in life? Hence the bible reading of Luke 16:19-31.
Don't give up on hope. Penny Wong lost $106 billion as finance Minister before the last ALP budget. She lost another $40 billion afterwards, before losing government. Wong claimed she had made conservative choices but things were difficult, indicating the GFC which Rudd used to throw away more money not included in the $106 billion. The importance of the issue is in the Dan Andrews ALP Government losing $29 billion on infrastructure costs alone since their last budget. The ALP had refused to spend $500 million on the Yarra tunnel project, which was to build the tunnel deeper and not interrupt city life. But Andrews had said he wanted to be on budget, and create chaos in Melbourne. Only Andrews created chaos in Melbourne, ongoing, and spent $2 billion more because of waste.
Infrastructure has to be built, but it doesn't have to be built badly. Australia, and Victoria, could do much with $175 billion. She could have reliable cheap coal energy, better roads, better public transport, cheaper CBD costs, less crime, higher real wages, less unemployment .. if only the ALP were not in government, or obstructing the federal senate.LNP in Queensland chose Deb Frecklington to lead LNP against the awful Palaszczuk government. But idiot journalist does not write about policy differences, but claims the previous leader of the LNP had been tainted by successful government. Paid rioters in Melbourne oppose Trump's Jerusalem move. Europe funding anti semitism. Don’t worry about terrorists .. they are more scared of you than you are of them.
People agree our politicians are overpaid in Australia. They say that politicians need to be paid less. But if our politicians are so well off, why are they so awful? How would taking money away from the few good politicians benefit Australia? How could ruining industry and ratcheting up power prices get bilateral support, but something family friendly like maternity leave get so little? Allegedly, paying teachers, police, firies, healthcare workers more produces better employees.
<During the 3-1/2 years of World War II that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and ended with the surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, "We the People of the U.S.A. " produced the following:
22 aircraft carriers
8 battleships
48 cruisers
349 destroyers
420 destroyer escorts
203 submarines
34 million tons of merchant ships
100,000 fighter aircraft
98,000 bombers
24,000 transport aircraft
58,000 training aircraft
93,000 tanks
257,000 artillery pieces
105,000 mortars
3,000,000 machine guns and
2,500,000 military trucks
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and, ultimately, conquered Japan and Germany.
It's worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama Administration couldn't even build a website that worked!> Via J Murphy
Such bullying is widespread and pernicious. My column yesterday was clear, but might have people disagreeing vehemently. That happens when a Christian, conservative writes their thoughts. It is ok to disagree. It can be enlightening to argue. However, as has happened in the past, to merely say one doesn't understand the points made is merely argumentative. Were I to expand on a point, I might overstate things and not mean what I wrote. I can defend myself, I can't explain some stranger's abnormality. I will provide a reminder of an old column.
38 Ways To Win An Argument when you are wrong
by Arthur Schopenhauer
1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, “You do not understand the mysteries of Kant’s philosophy.”
Person B replies, “Oh, if it’s mysteries you’re talking about, I’ll have nothing to do with them.”
3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.
4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
5 Use your opponent’s beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.
6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Example: Call something by a different name: “good repute” instead of “honor,” “virtue” instead of “virginity,” “red-blooded” instead of “vertebrates”.
7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.
By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.
Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent’s admissions.
8 Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
9 Use your opponent’s answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
10 If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.
This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.
11 If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion.
Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact.
Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
12 If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
Example: What an impartial person would call “public worship” or a “system of religion” is described by an adherent as “piety” or “godliness” and by an opponent as “bigotry” or “superstition.”
In other words, insert what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.
13 To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well.
If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must to everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, “whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents.”
Or , if a thing is said to occur “often” you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say “many.”
It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black.
14 Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.
15 If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent’s acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.
Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition.
Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment.
You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted.
For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.
16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?”
Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, “Why don’t you leave on the first plane?”
17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.
18 If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
19 Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.
20 If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion.
Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.
21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character.
But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him.
For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.
22 If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
23 Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements.
By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.
When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement.
Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement’s limits and say, “That is what I said, no more.”
24 State a false syllogism.
Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd.
It then appears that opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent’s proposition.
Example: “All ruminants are horned,” is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.
26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.”
You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.”
27 Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
Not only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.
29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion--that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.
This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
30 Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.
If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case.
If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance.
Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most.
You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.
31 If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
Example: “What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.”
In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.
This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.
32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, “That is fascism” or “Atheism” or “Superstition.”
In making an objection of this kind you take for granted
1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;
and
2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.
33 You admit your opponent’s premises but deny the conclusion.
Example: “That’s all very well in theory, but it won’t work in practice.”
34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so.
You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.
You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.
If you succeed in making your opponent’s opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma.
You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church.
He will abandon the argument.
36 You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.
If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.
This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases.
If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
For some, at the moment, the Sex Party has more credibility.
Meanwhile monocultural Greens demonise white men for being of the same culture, but higher class, from which the Greens underclass are spawned.
Many thanks to Tim Blair for inventing the word 'Frightbat' without which the screeching fishwives of the left could not be accurately described in a single word. Tim is to be lauded by Frightbats discussing 'Frightbat' at the Sydney Opera House. It is expected no conservative will actually be invited to the event but one should be able to hear the shrieks from an adjacent suburb on 8th March 2015, 11am. From $35 at the Joan Sutherland theatre for those wishing to see the fluttering ones, sponsored by the ABC.
Why is Waleed Aly smiling? Is it because the SMH is being sued for its campaign against the Australian treasurer? The paper never blinked while Swan, the former treasurer turned the economy from a modest $80 billion surplus to $650 billion deficit. Hockey is trying to get things balanced. The criticisms levelled against Hockey of incompetence are overstated. He does not control the senate, but has masterfully, with the government, got a substantial amount passed, and achieved an upper hand in future negotiations by not being foolish. Meanwhile the ridiculous independents have delayed important savings which will cost the economy an estimated $8 billion. Also, the independents have not supported important legislation with humanitarian side effects. Had the senate acted properly, children would have been out of detention before Christmas last year. And had the Pacific Solution not been rescinded then over a thousand need not have drowned. A senate can be very useful as a house of review, or very bad.
With all the finger pointing, the partisan press have sidelined the news that former ALP President and AHU President Michael Williamson, who stole millions of dollars from the poorest professionals in the land, had a mistress who worked in the union. She has been ordered to pay back $4 million. That is how the ALP 'serves' the workers it represents. The partisan media were looking away, and they were looking towards a historian who wrote a book about unions in WW2 fighting against the national interest. Leading lights of the partisan press corp lied about the book. Mike Carlton is un-penitant at failing fact checks he levelled against Colebatch.
Mr Abbott is even handed and generous too. Sometimes too generous. He welcomed the Chinese President recently by kindly referring to Whitlam and Wran for their normalising state relations with China in the '70s. But, Bill Shorten in return sledged Australia over the ineffective AGW tax she'd dumped. No conservative can ever lean far enough left to please left wing voters. Was there a hidden reason behind Mr Abbott giving away $200 million for a global climate fund designed to prevent poor nations from modernising? One hopes so, but if so, we may never know.
Banks support AGW because the corruption is that big. First, banks are entangled through the ponzie type schemes set up to promote the hysteria. Then, in order to make good their exposure they must promote it. So they have products they must support. But with that much money, people lose their vision. And so the environmental group Greenpeace which pollutes water with dumped boat fuel and threatens trade where it is profitable has vandalised ancient Nazca drawings so as to promote itself. World heritage items have been vandalised on an enormously large scale visible from space. Money does that.
David Hicks is an Australian jihadist who was captured by the CIA and interrogated at GITMO. They never did to him what he wanted to do to others. He had claimed to have forgotten things. But now he remembers, sort of. He remembers what happened to him, but not what he did. Do enemas do that? Anyway, he is only one jihadist. Other Australian jihadists are being killed as quickly as they fly off to clean toilets and carry bodies in the Levant. Maybe we aren't doing enough for them.
Andrew Bolt writes about the injustice surrounding his silencing. His case is compelling. Those endorsing the law abused to silence him, are wrong. A scandal is evident over media silence regarding the AWU affair. Australia is losing its' car industry, and that is because of that kind of corruption. Unions have finally killed their host, and the parasites will fall about, dying slowly. Official silence over a hand waver pretending to sign for a hand wringer pretending to care. Evidence gathers for the young of today being a stolen generation denied access to the truth. As the UN encourages suicide bombers by children, child abuse by so called Palestinians raising children to attack police, the UN wants to stop good parents from raising their children with respect and love.
In 1862, American Civil War: USS Cairo sank on the Yazoo River, becoming the first armored ship to be sunk by an electrically detonated mine. In 1870, Joseph H. Rainey of South Carolina became the second black U.S. congressman, the first being Hiram Revels. In 1897, Belo Horizonte, the first planned city in Brazil, was founded. In 1901, Guglielmo Marconi received the first transatlantic radio signal (the letter "S" [***] in Morse Code), at Signal Hill in St John's, Newfoundland. In 1911, Delhi replaced Calcutta as the capital of India. Also, King George V of the United Kingdom and Mary of Teck were enthroned as Emperor and Empress of India. In 1915, President of the Republic of China, Yuan Shikai, announces his intention to reinstate the monarchy and proclaim himself Emperor of China. In 1917, in Nebraska, Father Edward J. Flanagan founded Boys Town as a farm village for wayward boys. In 1918, the Flag of Estonia was raised atop the Pikk Hermann for the first time. In 1925, the Majlis of Iran voted to crown Reza Khan as the new Shah of Iran, starting the Pahlavi dynasty.
In 1935, Lebensborn Project, a Nazi reproduction program, was founded by Heinrich Himmler. In 1936, Xi'an Incident: The Generalissimo of the Republic of China, Chiang Kai-shek, was kidnapped by Zhang Xueliang. In 1937, Second Sino-Japanese War: USS Panay incident – Japanese aircraft bombed and sank U.S. gunboat USS Panay on the Yangtze river in China. In 1939, Winter War: Battle of Tolvajärvi – Finnish forces defeated those of the Soviet Union in their first major victory of the conflict. Also, HMS Duchess sank after a collision with HMS Barham off the coast of Scotland with the loss of 124 men. In 1940, World War II: Approximately 70 people were killed in the Marples Hotel, Fitzalan Square, Sheffield, as a result of a German air raid. In 1941, World War II: Fifty-four Japanese A6M Zero fighters raided Batangas Field, Philippines. Jesús Villamor and four Filipino fighter pilots fend them off; César Basa was killed. Also, World War II: USMC F4F "Wildcats" sank the first 4 major Japanese ships off Wake Island. Also, World War II: The United Kingdom declared war on Bulgaria. Hungary and Romania declared war on the United States. India declared war on Japan. Also, Adolf Hitler declared the imminent extermination of the Jews at a meeting in the Reich Chancellery In 1942, World War II: German troops began Operation Winter Storm, an attempt to relieve encircled Axis forces during the Battle of Stalingrad. Also, a fire in a hostel in St. John's, Newfoundland, killed 100 people. In 1946, a fire at a New York City ice plant spread to a nearby tenement, killing 37 people. In 1948, Malayan Emergency: Batang Kali massacre – 14 members of the Scots Guards stationed in Malaya allegedly massacred 24 unarmed civilians and set fire to the village.
1950, Paula Ackerman, the first woman appointed to perform rabbinical functions in the United States, led the congregation in her first service. In 1956, beginning of the Irish Republican Army's "Border Campaign". In 1958, Guinea joined the United Nations. In 1963, Kenya gained its independence from the United Kingdom. In 1964, Prime Minister Jomo Kenyatta became the first President of the Republic of Kenya. In 1969, Years of Lead: Piazza Fontana bombing – The offices of Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura in Piazza Fontana, Milan, were bombed. In 1979, Coup d'état of December Twelfth: South Korean Army Major General Chun Doo-hwan ordered the arrest of Army Chief of Staff General Jeong Seung-hwawithout authorization from President Choi Kyu-ha, alleging involvement in the assassination of ex-President Park Chung-hee. In 1979, President of Pakistan Muhammad Zia-ul-Haqconferred Nishan-e-Imtiaz on Nobel laureate Dr Abdus Salam. Also, the unrecognised state of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia returned to British control and resumed using the name Southern Rhodesia.
In 1983, the Australian Labor government led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating floated the Australian dollar. In 1984, Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya became the third president of Mauritania after a coup d'état against Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidallawhile the latter was attending a summit. In 1985, Arrow Air Flight 1285, a McDonnell Douglas DC-8, crashed after takeoff in Gander, Newfoundland, killing all 256 people on board, including 236 members of the United States Army's 101st Airborne Division. In 1988, the Clapham Junction rail crash killed thirty-five and injured hundreds after two collisions of three commuter trains—one of the worst train crashes in the United Kingdom. In 1991, the Russian Federation gained independence from the USSR. In 2000, the United States Supreme Courtreleased its decision in Bush v. Gore. In 2001, Prime Minister of Vietnam Phan Văn Khảiannounced the decision on upgrading Phong Nha–Kẻ Bàng to the Phong Nha-Kẻ Bàng National Park, providing information on projects for the conservation and development of the park and revised maps. In 2012, North Korea successfully launched its first satellite, Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2, using an Unha-3 carrier rocket.
===
I am a decent man and don't care for the abuse given me. I created a video raising awareness of anti police feeling among western communities. I chose the senseless killing of Nicola Cotton, a Louisiana policewoman who joined post Katrina, to highlight the issue. I did this in order to get an income after having been illegally blacklisted from work in NSW for being a whistleblower. I have not done anything wrong. Local council appointees refused to endorse my work, so I did it for free. Youtube's Adsence refused to allow me to profit from their marketing it. Meanwhile, I am hostage to abysmal political leadership and hopeless journalists. My shopfront has opened on Facebook.
Other Stuff
No comments:
Post a Comment