Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:22 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:18 am If you believe that you can tell that she is pretending something,...

Old, rich white woman. Kneeling like Colin Kaepernick. In "solidarity" with Communists. Wearing a kente cloth.

And you see nothing suspicious?

You’re seeing things because you have a suspicious outlook.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:22 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:18 am If you believe that you can tell that she is pretending something,...

Old, rich white woman. Kneeling like Colin Kaepernick. In "solidarity" with Communists. Wearing a kente cloth.

And you see nothing suspicious?

You’re seeing things because you have a suspicious outlook.

Well, often a little suspicion is a very good thing. It keeps one from being played. And playing people is clearly what's going on here: this is a gesture for the cameras, an elaborate exhibition of ceremonial supplication to the gods of political correctness, being conducted by a person whose income and behaviour belie the very values she's posing as worshipping.

A little suspicion is certainly warranted here, wouldn't you say? And a little common sense, maybe?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:12 pm So, is Biden being impeached for being a Democrat?

The reasons are now common knowledge.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... AAB8qX.jpg

*

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Common Knowledge
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/common-knowledge/

*

The Biden Crime Family Big Guy says, who you gonna believe, me or your lying dogface pony soldier eyes?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:22 am
Old, rich white woman. Kneeling like Colin Kaepernick. In "solidarity" with Communists. Wearing a kente cloth.

And you see nothing suspicious?

You’re seeing things because you have a suspicious outlook.

Well, often a little suspicion is a very good thing. It keeps one from being played. And playing people is clearly what's going on here: this is a gesture for the cameras, an elaborate exhibition of ceremonial supplication to the gods of political correctness, being conducted by a person whose income and behaviour belie the very values she's posing as worshipping.

A little suspicion is certainly warranted here, wouldn't you say? And a little common sense, maybe?

Just don’t let your suspicions drive you into paranoia.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:33 pm
You’re seeing things because you have a suspicious outlook.

Well, often a little suspicion is a very good thing. It keeps one from being played. And playing people is clearly what's going on here: this is a gesture for the cameras, an elaborate exhibition of ceremonial supplication to the gods of political correctness, being conducted by a person whose income and behaviour belie the very values she's posing as worshipping.

A little suspicion is certainly warranted here, wouldn't you say? And a little common sense, maybe?

Just don’t let your suspicions drive you into paranoia.

Nowhere near. The evidence is in front of your eyes. Don't let propaganda convince you your eyes are lyin' to you; that's how people get played.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:15 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:04 pm
Well, often a little suspicion is a very good thing. It keeps one from being played. And playing people is clearly what's going on here: this is a gesture for the cameras, an elaborate exhibition of ceremonial supplication to the gods of political correctness, being conducted by a person whose income and behaviour belie the very values she's posing as worshipping.

A little suspicion is certainly warranted here, wouldn't you say? And a little common sense, maybe?

Just don’t let your suspicions drive you into paranoia.

Nowhere near. The evidence is in front of your eyes. Don't let propaganda convince you your eyes are lyin' to you; that's how people get played.

Maybe so. Now tell me what I am thinking.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:15 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:04 pm
Just don’t let your suspicions drive you into paranoia.

Nowhere near. The evidence is in front of your eyes. Don't let propaganda convince you your eyes are lyin' to you; that's how people get played.

Maybe so. Now tell me what I am thinking.

I don't need to. But if you send me a picture of you kneeling in a lobby in solidarity with oppressed minorities, and in obeisance to the Communists' propaganda, but you still hold a personal fortune of over $144 million dollars at the same time, I promise you I'm going to have some questions about your real motives.

And so should you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:45 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:15 pm
Nowhere near. The evidence is in front of your eyes. Don't let propaganda convince you your eyes are lyin' to you; that's how people get played.

Maybe so. Now tell me what I am thinking.

I don't need to. But if you send me a picture of you kneeling in a lobby in solidarity with oppressed minorities, and in obeisance to the Communists' propaganda, but you still hold a personal fortune of over $144 million dollars at the same time, I promise you I'm going to have some questions about your real motives.

And so should you.

You don’t need to, but you’re saying that you can, I.e. you can access a person’s mind to find out about motivations and intent.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:45 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:23 pm
Maybe so. Now tell me what I am thinking.

I don't need to. But if you send me a picture of you kneeling in a lobby in solidarity with oppressed minorities, and in obeisance to the Communists' propaganda, but you still hold a personal fortune of over $144 million dollars at the same time, I promise you I'm going to have some questions about your real motives.

And so should you.

You don’t need to, but you’re saying that you can, I.e. you can access a person’s mind to find out about motivations and intent.

Look back. You'll find I said no such thing.

What I said was essentially, that you can judge a person's authenticity between the distance between their actions and their claims. And in Pelosi's case, the gap's a thousand miles wide. Nobody has to read any minds to see that.

Just open your eyes. You'll see it, too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:45 pm
I don't need to. But if you send me a picture of you kneeling in a lobby in solidarity with oppressed minorities, and in obeisance to the Communists' propaganda, but you still hold a personal fortune of over $144 million dollars at the same time, I promise you I'm going to have some questions about your real motives.

And so should you.

You don’t need to, but you’re saying that you can, I.e. you can access a person’s mind to find out about motivations and intent.

Look back. You'll find I said no such thing.

What I said was essentially, that you can judge a person's authenticity between the distance between their actions and their claims. And in Pelosi's case, the gap's a thousand miles wide. Nobody has to read any minds to see that.

Just open your eyes. You'll see it, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you SAID such, but rather that what you said was in effect saying such. Perhaps you weren’t aware of the implications of your claim.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 8:41 pm

You don’t need to, but you’re saying that you can, I.e. you can access a person’s mind to find out about motivations and intent.

Look back. You'll find I said no such thing.

What I said was essentially, that you can judge a person's authenticity between the distance between their actions and their claims. And in Pelosi's case, the gap's a thousand miles wide. Nobody has to read any minds to see that.

Just open your eyes. You'll see it, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you SAID such, but rather that what you said was in effect saying such.

It was not saying that. Happy to correct you.

Perhaps you weren’t aware of the implications of your claim.

There were no such implications. I don't have to know Pelosi's mind in order to judge when what she says and what she does are two different things.

Nor do you.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:25 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:12 pm So, is Biden being impeached for being a Democrat?

The reasons are now common knowledge.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... AAB8qX.jpg

That's somebody's tweet. Is that supposed to be compelling?

As for common knowledge... there is a wealth of it concerning Trump which you completely ignore.

If Joe is guilty of something that deserves prosecution, then that's what should happen. But the news reports I've seen from balanced sources indicate that not even the Republicans can agree on having much to go on.

"Since gaining the House majority in January, House Republicans have aggressively investigated Biden and his son, claiming without evidence that they engaged in an influence-peddling scheme. The allegations echo those that former President Donald Trump has made for years against Biden and his family."

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden ... e08c027cee

Biden impeachment investigation announced formally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYMkhgCUC0A

The already-known facts are enough to warrant the OP, it would seem. What the speaker implies is that what remains to be shown are not the basic facts outlined, which appear no longer to be in question, but only "The Big Guy's" degree of complicity in the known and identified corruption of Hunter and cronies.

Very interesting.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:02 pm Biden impeachment investigation announced formally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYMkhgCUC0A

The already-known facts are enough to warrant the OP, it would seem. What the speaker implies is that what remains to be shown are not the basic facts outlined, which appear no longer to be in question, but only "The Big Guy's" degree of complicity in the known and identified corruption of Hunter and cronies.

Very interesting.

"The Big Guy's" degree of complicity in the known and identified corruption of Hunter and cronies.

Not even that is necessary to impeach Brandon.

It’s interesting that the media has hinged the public expectation of impeachment upon criminal charges, and whether or not Biden directly received payments from the family.

However, that is not the test for impeachment.

Those Leftists. So sneaky.

High crimes is the test for impeachment.

Congress impeaches, not the courts.

A president that is bribed directly or indirectly by foreign governments, or anyone, is a matter for Congress to settle, not the courts, and the method is impeachment. The inquiry into the necessity of impeachment is currently happening, and it’s uncovering so much dirt that Biden is apparently the most corrupt POTUS in the history of the USA, USA, USA. There is more than enough to impeach him.

Now it’s about politics and the Republicans in Congress weakly flap their hands and say, but he won’t be convicted of the impeachment.

That’s not a reason to not impeach.

No impeached president has been convicted.

Two big reasons for impeachment: The open border, and accepting bribes from foreign governments through the Crime Family selling political influence that indicates treason.

Finally the KEY WItness in the case against the evol Biden Crime Family speaks out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DkU6TE1-zY