Joe Ferguson forever

How did you feel about this? The long island scum threw a beer at McIlroy's wife and shouted obscenities at the Irishman as he lined up shots. They had to call in a dozen state police to escort his team. Do you think the hecklers were liberals? The US just can't have nice things at this point in time. Sad and embarrassing. Bunch of yobos... https://apnews.com/article/ryder-cup-rory-mcilroy-fans-behavior-86b5a189f6699a0734a77d27c9ebd8aa

Switzerland has very well defined rules. Trains run on time. Nearly everyone does a stint in the army. Residences are well kept or face loud criticism. Most have survival bunkers and supplies. But they're not into suppressing free speech. They don't ban books for instance.

The Ryder Cup is showing how far we've sunk. It's golf. And they're chanting F Rory. They had to call in the state troopers to accompany him on his round. Celebrate maga's This is not normal.. Civility is dead...at least in Long Island. At least there's some great golf.

is it the truth? truth /troo͞th/ noun Conformity to fact or actuality. "Does this story have any truth?"

debate is sport. there are many competitions with honest discussion. the important and imperative thing is that they play by the rules.

the two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can win and look for the truth. You just need to play by the rules...

I think it’s better than your cartoons.

You don’t need to always be offensive

Who said it was for all ages? You’re on a streak. Keep that fallacy coming. “”Ya’ll”refers to more than one doesn’t it? Do you think maybe y’all referred to liberals? And I’m the one who supposedly can’t communicate. You’re the one with delusions. did Neo post a counter argument?

I posted 4merperformer to illustrate that an Epstein post predated the claim of another poster. why did you move on from my short debate with Neo?

Asked and answered. He didn’t rebut. In fact, he agreed with me. But should he, I’ll assume he’s speaking for you given your above claim.

It’s roughly equivalent to your “if everyone jumps over the falls” tactic.

Who said anything about the killing fields or brokeback mountain? You posted the definition of straw man but didn’t comprehend it. I’m not sure I understand your awkward prose either. But here’s a list of banned classics. Steinbeck and Huxley stand out. https://www.rawstory.com/florida-banned-books-2666728303/

because it's entertaining and I like to win. but yeah, it's futile.

Untrue. False. Incorrect. Posted August 22, 2019 I left this separate from the main Epstein thread. Lots of people gave been accused or rumored to be friends of Epstein. Shirley there are others. Take a guess or two at whose name might come out some day. It can't be anyone already mentioned or anyone from his black book. I'll start: Stephen Hawking Untrue, false, incorrect \ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/sep/26/jimmy-kimmel-trump-ratings-escalator

You’re giving way too much credit to the current electorate. If he wins, it must be because the judge is liberal? Why?

The other conclusion is the correct one: That I'm arguing that books that are not sexually explicit, especially those that have a political or religious stance outside of conservative arbitrary red lines, are forbidden. So what about your straw man that attempted to validate by going thru it. Lord, I hope you're not a teacher.

"I think that thought is silly". Is that not a challenge that deserves further debate?

Isn't Peter Thiel gay? https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5524059-epstein-estate-documents-theil-bannon-musk/

Which do you find unimportant, winning or learning?

They're both important. Do you cheer for the Bills to win or learn? Just for Orlando. Maybe you could just watch the movie. The Handmaid's Tale author, Margaret Atwood, published an article in The Atlanticin 2023, responding to the school board in Madison County, Virginia banning her book from high-school libraries on the grounds of having explicit sexual scenes. She argued that the official reasons for the ban are ridiculous, stating that her book "is much less sexually explicit than the Bible." Limiting what kids can read based on religious views is also a form of totalitarianism and flies against the separation of church and state that the US is founded on. The author stated that despite her book being misunderstood as anti-Christian, The Handmaid's Tale was partially inspired by biblical texts and argues "against totalitarian control and power hoarding cloaked in a supposed religiousness that is mostly based on the earlier scriptures in the Bible." Atwood does have a point. It makes little sense that her book is banned, while movie and TV adaptations that include more explicit scenes are not. Banning her book from libraries only affects those who can't afford to buy books. Atwood also raised the topic of book censorship in the age of social media and streaming platforms. The Handmaid's Tale depicts a dystopian society where the theocratic Christian authoritarian regime of Gilead has taken over the US. The penultimate fifth season of The Handmaid's Tale delves further into June's story. The provocative nature of the subjects discussed in the story may cause discomfort for certain people, especially on the subject of sex, birth control, and women's rights. However, contrary to what is claimed in the official statement on the book ban, sex exists only by mention. There's no direct, on-the-page description of explicit activities. AlthoughThe Handmaid's Tale was written for adults, the book often makes an appearance on high school reading lists. The author has since teamed up with Penguin Random House to create a fire-proofed version to ensure her book cannot be burned.

you argued using the premise of me supporting porn or sexually explicit books for children. I don't and I never said I did. But you "went through it". Wtf does that mean and how does it relate to your straw man argument against something I never said? Huh? Winning an argument and looking for the truth are mutually exclusive? splain... certainly, one can argue an untruthful point. Lawyers do it all the time. But I did not. I communicate just fine. Never had a colleague complain.

You’re an idiot. I really pray you’re not really a teacher. Context of the subject “truth”? We’ll see how the court case goes. I don’t know what the evidence is. The video of him responding to Cruz isn’t in itself convincing. It remains to be proven whether what he said was true.

Nope. Were you debating someone else when you quoted my above comments on China and Russia? “I really doubt China has any interest in being a tag team, military partner with them. I think that thought is silly. “ This is the statement I’m debating with you. China is currently a military partner with Russia. Do you disagree with the WSJ article I linked? Then refute it. Not letting you reframe the argument. Nothing wrong with me. I enjoy debate and winning.