I asked you straight up if you had proof. You refused to answer. So I ask you again, do you have proof that Fanning is a pedophile? Time to step up and be a man.
Obama nominates child molesting homo for Secretary of the Army
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
I asked you straight up if you had proof. You refused to answer. So I ask you again, do you have proof that Fanning is a pedophile? Time to step up and be a man.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
right, I refused to confirm or deny your assumption that I don't have proof
but then, you, without proof, acting on your assumption, accused me (and Nick) of lying
CM said:
do you have proof that I am lying?
CM said:
time to step up and stop being a retard :idunno:
Last edited:
Aside from your cowardice to defend your statements, there is no investigation that concludes that he assaulted children. There are no allegations, aside from yours and Nick, that would require and investigation. the news media, who dearly loves to dish dirt on political figures (Pulitzer prize), have not found anything that would raise questions regarding Fanning's interactions with minors. Based on the evidence that is available in the public domain, I conclude that you are Nick are slandering a man based on your homophobic preconceptions. Unless and until you present your prrof that he is a pedophile, there is no reason for me not to see your statement as a lie.
That would stand up i a court of law, no. That would stand up in the court of public opinion, already done.
I have. I have clearly revealed your lies and the deceit you are willing to perpetrate to maintain your lies. The very worst part is that you do this in the name of God so all that people learn from you is that God lies and cheats and hates.
That is called taking the 5th. In a court of law a jury can infer nothing from your refusal to answer a question. However, it is most commonly a right asserted by those you have something they wish to hide. What are you hiding SOD.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, the only reason you do have to see it as a lie is your assumption
which is not proof
iow, you have no proof that either Nick or I am lying
and yet, you're comfortable accusing us of lying
without proof
I have exactly the same amount and same kind of proof as you and Nick have for accusing Fanning of being a pedophile. Now there's a logic problem for you! We can't both be right. One of us MUST be wrong. And you could prove me to be a liar if you just answered one simple little question. Yet you take the fifth rather than answer that question. Interesting tactic.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, that's your assumption
and based solely on that assumption, you're comfortable leveling an accusation against me (and nick)
iow, it's ok for you to claim that I am lying (Nick too) based on your assumption that I have no proof
but it's not ok (by your argument) for me (or Nick) to claim the fanning is a child molester based on an assumption :chuckle:
You just admitted that you and Nick made and assumption and made an allegation accordingly. That is the final proof that you lied and that you have no proof, only assumptions.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I admitted nothing
I was demonstrating why your argumentation was flawed
didja miss that (by your argument) part?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
lost in the clutter today was a point I was tending towards when I got sidetracked
for Nick to be lying, as anna claims, Nick has to know that what he's saying is untrue
if Nick believes what he's saying is true, but it isn't, he's not lying, he's mistaken
additionally, whether or not Nick has proof, two possibilities exist:
1. Fanning is a child molester
or
2. Fanning is not a child molester
Anna's position, and that of Cabinetmaker, is that without proof, Fanning is not a child molester.
but whether or not Fanning is a child molester has absolutely nothing to do with Nick's statement or Nick's proof or lack thereof
I tried to address artie's position but as usual, it was too retarded to make sense of
oh wait, here's artie's position:
Spoiler
even if that's true, it's irrelevant
del, to rex:
:thumb:
yep
Last edited:
He knows, because he knowingly made it up.
Likewise, the fact that you're a terrorist has nothing to do with whether or not people call you one.
You terrorist, you.
Or maybe it make sense to put the burden of proof on the accuser. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Fanning is a known child molester 
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
prove it
moondoggie said:
well yeah, that was kinda my point
the existence of a truth is not reliant on one's knowledge of it
rex said:
well, anna and you (and cabinetmaker) have accused Nick of lying
so far, none of you have offered proof
The great thing about what you said above is that I don't have to. But it sure looks like lying to me.
There's no one here who doesn't understand that.
He hasn't offered any evidence. That's a requirement if you're going to make accusations.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you must have misunderstood
Nick's evidence or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether or not Fanning is a child molester
rex said:
in a court of law, perhaps
we're not in a court of law, we're posting anonymously on a discussion board on the internet
Rumors always prove to be true
WizardofOz
New member
Nick M is a child molesting homosexual. Since we're posting anonymously on a discussion board on the internet, I don't have to offer a shred of evidence to back up my claim.
Really? :liberals:
Really? :liberals:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
especially on the internet! :banana: