Just for reference, the following are not valid arguments from evidence:
Wake up!
Use some common sense
You're being naïve
In fact, they are red flags that someone is not making a valid argument. If you can't explain the logical connection between a fact and a conclusion, then you aren't making a valid argument.
Just for reference, the following are not valid arguments from evidence:
Wake up!
Use some common sense
You're being naïve
In fact, they are red flags that someone is not making a valid argument. If you can't explain the logical connection between a fact and a conclusion, then you aren't making a valid argument.
Speaking of illogical connections, I would add another invalid argument that has been used several times in this thread:
>Everyone believes a person did A, right? [wrong.] But others say they did not-A. Therefore, that’s proof the person did A. Why? because of course others will always say the person did not-A when the person actually did A.
And another. X acted corruptly at some time. Therefore, X is corrupt. Therefore, anything about X that cannot be explained must be corruption.
It's kind of a "corruption of the gaps" argument.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Is going to take some time to go through everything on a forum like this.
I want to finish this discussion…
Why was 112K wired to Rosamond, in care of Archer, before either of them were hired by Burisma?
Like any true Redneck, double Jim Beam neat, with a Coors light on the side. If it is Saturday night, Jim Beam Black.
Markk, now you're just Gish galloping. Here's what you are doing. You have a list of assertions that aren't actually based on any evidence actual evidence. Each of them is based on pure innuendo. But because there are a bunch of them, you think they mean something. Ten or twenty piles of horse pucky do not magically transform in to evidence when combined -- they make a big pile of horse pucky. That's why you're so eager to hop from point to point after someone shows that an individual point is pure crap. You can't adequately defend any of them as being based on actual evidence, but you've been bamboozled into thinking that this just must mean Joe Biden was corrupt because .... wake up , sheeple.
You aren't willing to finish the discussion at all. Just like with the "meeting," you are unwilling to consider the actual evidence. Hopping around from point to point without examining the evidence is not "finishing the discussion." It's just repeating your assertions over and over without discussing the evidence.
At lunch so real quick…add these to your list…and this is just one post
1.Gish galloping
2.pure innuendo
3. Piles of horse plucky
4. Bamboozled
5. wake up (ripped that off from me I guess
6. sheeple
Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.
So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?
Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.
So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?
Luv ya
MG
I'm not at all well-versed all on of the ins-and-outs of this, but I believe you're conflating Hunter's 112K tax bill with the 142K payment from Novatus Holding to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
Markk, now you're just Gish galloping. Here's what you are doing. You have a list of assertions that aren't actually based on any evidence actual evidence. Each of them is based on pure innuendo. But because there are a bunch of them, you think they mean something. Ten or twenty piles of horse pucky do not magically transform in to evidence when combined -- they make a big pile of horse pucky. That's why you're so eager to hop from point to point after someone shows that an individual point is pure crap. You can't adequately defend any of them as being based on actual evidence, but you've been bamboozled into thinking that this just must mean Joe Biden was corrupt because .... wake up , sheeple.
You aren't willing to finish the discussion at all. Just like with the "meeting," you are unwilling to consider the actual evidence. Hopping around from point to point without examining the evidence is not "finishing the discussion." It's just repeating your assertions over and over without discussing the evidence.
At lunch so real quick…add these to your list…and this is just one post
1.Gish galloping
2.pure innuendo
3. Piles of horse plucky
4. Bamboozled
5. wake up (ripped that off from me I guess
6. sheeple
Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.
So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?
Luv ya
MG
Markk, you haven't stuck to the one paragraph. You've been bouncing around the entire laundry list of things you claimed was evidence that Archer had a private meeting with Joe Biden. I'll try to organize it all this evening.
In the meantime, how much time have you spent trying to research the answer to your question?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
At lunch so real quick…add these to your list…and this is just one post
1.Gish galloping
2.pure innuendo
3. Piles of horse plucky
4. Bamboozled
5. wake up (ripped that off from me I guess
6. sheeple
Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.
So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?
Luv ya
MG
Markk, you haven't stuck to the one paragraph. You've been bouncing around the entire laundry list of things you claimed was evidence that Archer had a private meeting with Joe Biden. I'll try to organize it all this evening.
In the meantime, how much time have you spent trying to research the answer to your question?
Lol..really are you that enthralled in this…I will save you the time…this is the first quote you quoted from me in your OP….
Devon Archer…
In part…
He was Hunter Biden’s college roommate, they were partners in a few companies. They both worked for Burisma being employed by a Russian backed Oligarch, or to put it simply a gangster or goverment mafia member. Mykola Zlochevsky, their boss and employer is now hiding out in maybe Monaco, where offshore accounts thrive.
In 2014 Archer met with Joe Biden at the White House. A day after Burisma deposited over 100k into a bank in C/O Archer. A few days later Archer was a member of the Burisma board and a while later Biden was on the Burisma Board also.
From what I said here, what is not true or accurate?
Markk, you haven't stuck to the one paragraph. You've been bouncing around the entire laundry list of things you claimed was evidence that Archer had a private meeting with Joe Biden. I'll try to organize it all this evening.
In the meantime, how much time have you spent trying to research the answer to your question?
Lol..really are you that enthralled in this…I will save you the time…this is the first quote you quoted from me in your OP….
Devon Archer…
In part…
He was Hunter Biden’s college roommate, they were partners in a few companies. They both worked for Burisma being employed by a Russian backed Oligarch, or to put it simply a gangster or goverment mafia member. Mykola Zlochevsky, their boss and employer is now hiding out in maybe Monaco, where offshore accounts thrive.
In 2014 Archer met with Joe Biden at the White House. A day after Burisma deposited over 100k into a bank in C/O Archer. A few days later Archer was a member of the Burisma board and a while later Biden was on the Burisma Board also.
From what I said here, what is not true or accurate?
So you haven’t spent any time trying to figure out what the payment was for. You just assume it must be dishonest. Don’t you think it’s important to know why Burisma sent the money? Did Archer have any dealings with Burisma before the money was wired?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Lol..really are you that enthralled in this…I will save you the time…this is the first quote you quoted from me in your OP….
From what I said here, what is not true or accurate?
So you haven’t spent any time trying to figure out what the payment was for. You just assume it must be dishonest. Don’t you think it’s important to know why Burisma sent the money? Did Archer have any dealings with Burisma before the money was wired?
I guess you won’t answer my question…but I will answer yours.
I have spent time, I haven’t found out why, that’s why I am asking…maybe you know, give me CF if you know, and I will review. A few years ago I went through this with cakes and in the trial when the check stub came out after they subpoenaed their records. How do I archive the old forum?
What I know is that a day before he met with JB in the White House, he received 112 K from Burisma.
Now will you answer my question I just asked you in my last post…in regards to your pasting a quote from me in your OP, see below.
From what I said here, what is not true or accurate?
Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.
So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?
Luv ya
MG
I'm not at all well-versed all on of the ins-and-outs of this, but I believe you're conflating Hunter's 112K tax bill with the 142K payment from Novatus Holding to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
No, see U.S.A. v. Galanis et al., Case No. 1:16-cr-00371, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Rosemont Seneca Bohai account statements from Morgan Stanley Private Wealth Management,
In 2014 to I think around 2017…I would have to double check the date. However, Galanis, along with Archer and others were busted trying to bilk a NA tribe out of millions…back records were subpoenaed, and the payment by Burisma appeared. The deposit was dated a day before archer met with Biden in the White House, and a week +- before he was officially hired by Burisma…Hunter Biden was hired soon after.
Archer has just been sentenced to a year in prison and forfeited I think around 15 million or so, and about 45 million in restitution…google it for exact numbers I could be off a bit.
Please show me how I took it out of context, and please also paste the video, that was on a national TV interview, where Hunter says it is because of his name he is “wanted.”
You’ll have to post your own video of Hunter, my question was why you took the statement by Poland’s former president out of context.
So the ex-president of Poland is on record saying that hiring Hunter was because of his name, and your statement above implies the Biden name was "needed" so that MZ could get part of the money. Did the ex-pres of Poland say that also, or are you connecting the two things with no basis to so so, and implying a conspiracy that wasn't there?
I'll be more specific. Are you misrepresenting what the polish ex pres was saying?
And here’s proof you took it out of context:
Hunter Biden, the son of ex-Vice President Joe Biden, was indeed recruited to join the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma because of his name, but he didn’t use his familial connection to help the business, according to a former colleague. That colleague is Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former president of Poland. He also served on the company’s board.
“I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it’s not only because I’m so good, it’s also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland,” he told The Associated Press. “And this is all inter-connected. No-names are a nobody. Being Biden is not bad. It’s a good name.”
He said they only occasionally asked Hunter Biden at dinners how his father was, and once discussed the passing of Hunter’s brother Beau Biden.
Hunter Biden, who served on the Burisma board from 2014 to 2019, was valuable to the company because of his perspective as an American in fields like corporate governance and capital markets, said Kwasniewski.
So the former president of Poland did NOT say what you implied he did. You misused the quote out of context.
HuH…how did I take it out of context? from the AP interview
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former Polish president who is on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, said Thursday that Hunter Biden was indeed chosen to join its advisory board because of his name. He said that is simply how the world of business works.
But Kwasniewski (kvash-NYEF-skee) insisted in an interview with The Associated Press that Biden was an active board member who helped the company, and that he never used his relationship with his father, Joe Biden, to further the company’s interests.
“I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it’s not only because I’m so good, it’s also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland,” he said. “And this is all inter-connected. No-names are a nobody. Being Biden is not bad. It’s a good name.”
