Bull Ring Calling out a challenge to Crepitus and every democrat on this message board !

[forkup]

if they come up with positive proof like a forensics verifying the letter as Trumps I will leave the board for one month !

You keep hedging. What exactly is "positive proof"? And what’s "a forensics"? A press release? A guy squinting at handwriting on Fox & Friends? Bamboo fibers in the envelope? A séance with Justice Scalia?


All you're really saying is: “I’ll believe it if I feel like believing it.”
So, be specific, what exact conditions would make you accept the letter as genuine?

 

[yidnar]

You keep hedging. What exactly is "positive proof"? And what’s "a forensics"? A press release? A guy squinting at handwriting on Fox & Friends? Bamboo fibers in the envelope? A séance with Justice Scalia?


All you're really saying is: “I’ll believe it if I feel like believing it.”
So, be specific, what exact conditions would make you accept the letter as genuine?

lol ! gotta give you credit ! you have mastered the democrat art of "there is no provable truth" .. its like the childish game of "how do you know" where you ask a kid a question like what's your name and when they answer you the ask how do you know ? and when they answer with "because that's what my parents named me" you ask again "how do you know" and it keeps going on and on ..

 

[forkup]

lol ! gotta give you credit ! you have mastered the democrat art of "there is no provable truth" .. its like the childish game of "how do you know" where you ask a kid a question like what's your name and when they answer you the ask how do you know ? and when they answer with "because that's what my parents named me" you ask again "how do you know" and it keeps going on and on ..

Maybe it has something to do with you refusing to define your terms.


This is like trying to play chess with someone who won’t explain how the pieces move, and then blames you for not understanding the game.


You talk about “positive proof,” but when asked what that would look like to you, you dodge. That’s not skepticism, it’s a refusal to take responsibility for your own beliefs.


I already told you what I’d trust: discovery in open court, where both sides can challenge everything. That was seven days ago, Post 100, to be exact, the first time you falsely claimed I said it wasn’t provable.


And that’s the perfect metaphor for Trumpism: never defining terms, always dodging consequences, and using projection like a smokescreen to hide the emptiness of the argument.

For which you get exactly... zero credit.

 

[yidnar]

Maybe it has something to do with you refusing to define your terms.


This is like trying to play chess with someone who won’t explain how the pieces move — and then blames you for not understanding the game.


You talk about “provable truth,” but when asked what proof you'd accept, you dodge. That’s not skepticism — it’s a refusal to take responsibility for your own beliefs.


I already told you what I’d trust: discovery in open court, where both sides can challenge everything. That was five days ago — Post 100, to be exact — the first time you falsely claimed I said it wasn’t provable.


And that’s the perfect metaphor for Trumpism: never defining terms, always dodging consequences, and using projection like a smokescreen to hide the emptiness of the argument.

For which you get exactly... zero credit.

so unless it goes to court and is determined their .. you wont accept the outcome .. you wouldn't accept the WSJ retracting the story issuing an apology for posting a false story as proof eh .. or forensic analysis either eh ? ok .. IF "and I don't think it will" it goes to court and its proven to be authentic then I will leave the board for one month then .. if its proven in the same court to be a hoax or a fake then you only have to leave the board for one week .. there ya go .. I let you set the terms of the bet I made .. apparently there is only one way you will accept a verdict on the letter .. so take the bet .. are all homosexuals as nit picky as you are ?

 

[forkup]

so unless it goes to court and is determined their .. you wont accept the outcome .. you wouldn't accept the WSJ retracting the story issuing an apology for posting a false story as proof eh .. or forensic analysis either eh ? ok .. IF "and I don't think it will" it goes to court and its proven to be authentic then I will leave the board for one month then .. if its proven in the same court to be a hoax or a fake then you only have to leave the board for one week .. there ya go .. I let you set the terms of the bet I made .. apparently there is only one way you will accept a verdict on the letter .. so take the bet .. are all homosexuals as nit picky as you are ?

I don't know about all homosexuals, but sure, I accept that bet.


As for your little flourish at the end: are all MAGA loyalists so juvenile they think tossing out “homosexual” is some kind of devastating insult? I hate to break it to you, but I don’t give a damn who sleeps with whom, as long as it’s consensual, it’s none of my business. Being gay doesn’t give me the willies, and the accusation of being gay just shows you to not have grown past puberty emotionally.


And no, it’s not nitpicking, it’s clarity. What I am is someone who’s noticed just how routinely dishonest Trump and his orbit are. Like when they claimed to have the Epstein files ready to go, then quietly dropped it once they realized Trump was named.


I don’t typically trust people who’ve lied about a topic to tell the truth about that same topic, not without pressure. So yes, I’d accept a forensic analysis presented in open court, because someone would have to defend that analysis under oath. On Fox & Friends? Not so much.

 

[yidnar]

I don't know about all homosexuals, but sure, I accept that bet.


As for your little flourish at the end: are all MAGA loyalists so juvenile they think tossing out “homosexual” is some kind of devastating insult? I hate to break it to you, but I don’t give a damn who sleeps with whom, as long as it’s consensual, it’s none of my business. Being gay doesn’t give me the willies, and the accusation of being gay just shows you to not have grown past puberty emotionally.


And no, it’s not nitpicking, it’s clarity. What I am is someone who’s noticed just how routinely dishonest Trump and his orbit are. Like when they claimed to have the Epstein files ready to go, then quietly dropped it once they realized Trump was named.


I don’t typically trust people who’ve lied about a topic to tell the truth about that same topic, not without pressure. So yes, I’d accept a forensic analysis presented in open court, because someone would have to defend that analysis under oath. On Fox & Friends? Not so much.

lol ! understood .. so even if the WSJ retracts the story you wont accept the letter
[that no ones seen] as being false .. lol ! Proof that the charge and accusation is all you care about .. and I will take your word that being gay doesn't bother you .. when did you proudly come out of the closet ?

 

[citygator]

lol ! understood .. so even if the WSJ retracts the story you wont accept the letter
[that no ones seen] as being false .. lol ! Proof that the charge and accusation is all you care about .. and I will take your word that being gay doesn't bother you .. when did you proudly come out of the closet ?

If the Wall Street Journal doesn’t retract the story will you conclude it’s accurate?

 

[forkup]

lol ! understood .. so even if the WSJ retracts the story you wont accept the letter
[that no ones seen] as being false .. lol ! Proof that the charge and accusation is all you care about .. and I will take your word that being gay doesn't bother you .. when did you proudly come out of the closet ?

There are at least two Wall Street Journal reporters who’ve seen the letter. The source who leaked it has seen it. But sure, let’s pretend Rupert Murdoch greenlights politically explosive stories without vetting them, just to impress liberals at brunch. Makes perfect sense if you’re mainlining Facebook memes and calling it research.

And about the retraction, of course I’d accept one, provided it’s an actual retraction and not a quiet legal settlement wrapped in gag clauses. Big difference. But nuance isn’t really your strong suit, is it? If it’s not screaming in all caps or plastered with bald eagle GIFs, you probably scroll right past it.

As for your sudden, trembling curiosity about my sexuality, easy, tiger. I know you're flailing, but trying to flirt mid-meltdown is a bold move. I’m flattered, truly, but I don't date outside my species.

And finally, stop trying to rile me up, it’s not working. Homophobia only stings people still wrestling with themselves. To me, it’s just you holding up a big cardboard sign that says, “I have no argument, please look at my insecurities instead.” So go on, keep posting. Every one is like a little field trip into the ruins of your self-respect.

 

[candycorn]

if they come up with positive proof like a forensics verifying the letter as Trumps I will leave the board for one month !

Nobody believes you; you have a history of welching on bets.

 

[Hafar1014]

Audit after audit showed that Biden was the winner of the 2020 election and you simply wouldn't accept the proof. What would suffice as proof--proof that you'd accept-- in this case?

And we are glad he won because he destroyed the democrat party way to go Joe

 

[yidnar]

Nobody believes you; you have a history of welching on bets.

wanna bet ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Ive never seen a group of people so solemnly sworn to love such a flawed man so deeply that it overrides facts and common sense. To this day they think he won 2020 because Trump said so even though his Attorney General, VP, and every study showed that was false. He just got done saying his Uncle told stories about the Unabomber 10 years after he was dead.

Candycorn's leading question is 100% on point. There is nothing on Earth that would make this crew believe Trump was lying about something. Nothing. Hell, Trump could admit he wrote it and they'd say that was fake.

This is the Bull Ring you moron. Do you not know how to read rules?

Is that why you post garbage all the time and then run when it is exposed?

 

[citygator]

This is the Bull Ring you moron. Do you not know how to read rules?

Is that why you post garbage all the time and then run when it is exposed?

I never post garbage and defend everything. I do work though so you have to give me time. This thread is old and the first ******* line of the OP invites anyone to debate - dipshit.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I never post garbage and defend everything. I do work though so you have to give me time. This thread is old and the first ******* line of the OP invites anyone to debate - dipshit.

The rules say it isn't an open debate forum - dip***.

You do post garbage. It defines you.

 

[citygator]

The rules say it isn't an open debate forum - dip***.

You do post garbage. It defines you.

“I'm calling out Crepitus and any of his leftwing comrades on this board”. Straight from the OP.

Shit. Read the ******* title.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Read the ******* title.

Read the rules

 

[citygator]

Read the rules

You’re hopeless.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You’re hopeless.