Personally I'd like him starved to death like the tens of thousands of kids in Yemen. Better than he deserves.
Fox: Member of US Special Forces says, 'I am ashamed for the first time in my career'
- Thread starter Bugenhagen
- Start date
Personally I'd like him starved to death like the tens of thousands of kids in Yemen. Better than he deserves.
Let's say he's 100 lbs overweight. x 454 g = 45400 grams of fat, x 9 calories = 408,600 stored calories. Assuming he burns 2500 a day (1500 for his vast bulk, 500 tweeting, 500 golfing), he'll be lean in 163 days. Only then would true starvation start. That's quite a while. DO WE HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME??
Let's say he's 100 lbs overweight. x 454 g = 45400 grams of fat, x 9 calories = 408,600 stored calories. Assuming he burns 2500 a day (1500 for his vast bulk, 500 tweeting, 500 golfing), he'll be lean in 163 days. Only then would true starvation start. That's quite a while. DO WE HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME??
Chase him with dogs across the White House lawns every day? That would speed it up. A small dog would do as he is afraid of them. I guess its the germophobia thing?
There was a time when I thought America would never elect a man who hates dogs.
But.. if we did it like in the movie Se7en.. I could wait for that.
Let's say he's 100 lbs overweight. x 454 g = 45400 grams of fat, x 9 calories = 408,600 stored calories. Assuming he burns 2500 a day (1500 for his vast bulk, 500 tweeting, 500 golfing), he'll be lean in 163 days. Only then would true starvation start. That's quite a while. DO WE HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME??
You are not American. Your opinion is not valid. Spend your own money.
Although I generally respect your opinions, your view on “Conspiracy stuff” seems narrow minded and biased. Rest well and for kicks, how about trying to prove yourself wrong or at least proving you have a incomplete viewpoint?
The accusation of someone being a conspiracy theorist is a tool used by the Left to shut conversation on sensitive subjects. Sensitive subjects include where the country is headed, conversations on why the fringes of society get positive press while people in the mainstream get ridiculed. The Left does not want people to talk about their divisive rhetoric, history rewriting, and the teaching of Leftist ideals at certain colleges. The Left does not want people to speculate why religion has been under sustained attack by the Left for so long. The Left does not want people to make the long term connection between the Democratic party and Communist Party since the beginning of last century. The Left does not people to connect things like Solyndra or the billion dollar ACA website and campaign contributions going to foreign and domestic Leftist campaigns.
The Democrats have other tools in their attempts to control the national narrative on issues. Remember Political Correctness? How about shaming and false accusations?
You tend to be supportive of Leftist ideas. What do you have to say for yourself, Leftists, and the Democratic Party?
I'm going to have to find a book on logical fallacies in large print for you.
Here you go.
I'm going to have to find a book on logical fallacies in large print for you.
Here you go.
Looks like you have already written the book on logical fallacies, along with most Leftists.
I'm going to have to find a book on logical fallacies in large print for you.
Here you go.
Why do you hate NATO?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.