[johnforbes]

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^^^ johnforbes is so stupid he actually still believes Trump won without a shred of evidence to back up such a belief.

He even thinks that Dominion machines changed votes despite Rupert Murdock admitting that the FOXnews story was complete bullshit.

johnforbes is the epitome of today's Republican voter---complete ignorance, and he doesn't CARE that he's completely ignorant. Thus his perpetual shit-eating grin he exhibits here.

[johnforbes]

It is a song by a singer, not a statement of evidence from the esteemed Mr Forbes.

But what evidence either way is there?

Senile Joe had zero history of vote-getting ability on a national level, and campaigned from his basement.

Public appearances were rare, he was incoherent, and he lent fresh meaning to incoherence.

[Clownkicker]

"It is a song by a singer, not a statement of evidence from the partisan hypocrite Mr Forbes."-johnfuckhead

That's true. You have never produced a shred of evidence to support your dishonestly-held beliefs. But thank you for admitting you have not made a statement of evidence to support your unAmerican beliefs.


"...Joe had zero history of vote-getting ability on a national level, and campaigned from his basement.
Public appearances were rare, he was incoherent, and he lent fresh meaning to incoherence."-johnfoibles

...and trump is so loathed by Americans that even Biden could beat him. That should tell even a dimwit like yourself SOMETHING about Trump, shouldn't it, johnny.


"But what evidence either way is there?"-johntrulyfuckedup

Once again johnforbes demonstrates that he failed basic logic in college. He's STILL demanding that someone must do the impossible and prove a negative.

johnny, when there is no evidence whatsoever that an election was stolen, even after dozens of people have investigated the election, then the default position EVERY American must take is that the election is valid and then accept the results. To do otherwise does incalculable damage to the country. YOU personally are doing incalculable damage to your country. Even from this internet backwater you are perpetuating the lie that American democracy doesn't work.

Why do you hate the Constitution this way, johnny? Why do you hate your country this way?

EVERY Republican authority who investigated the election came back saying the vote counts were correct and that there was no evidence of any fraud. Even those (like Brnovich) who wanted Trump to win said the same. Over 60 court cases failed to find any evidence of fraud. Even those highly partisan clowns Cyber Ninjas couldn't find anything after investigating for six months and said the vote count was correct, as well as the radical Arizona Trumpist Atty. General Brnovich couldn't find a thing wrong with the election and put those findings into an official Arizona government report. But somehow the grossly ignorant johnforbes believes he know better than all these party partisans who saw the facts firsthand and found no fraud.

Why do you hate your own party this way? You are a member of a sick cult of personality that holds our democracy in contempt. johnforbes is in that 25% of today's Republicans who still believe stopping the Jan. 6th election certification by rioting and threatening elected officials with death was the right thing to do.

[Clownkicker]

We all hope johnforbes had a good day of drunken brawling celebrating his special fake holiday--St. Patrick's Day.

But let's hear what an intelligent person has to say about it. Watch the video of Bill Maher at the bottom of the article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill- ... 9d18&ei=40

Trump lost and you know it.

[johnforbes]

Mr Forbes does not drink alcohol, or even soda pop.

Unlike most Irish gents, his liver is as pure as the April rain.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you personally do not have to drink alcohol to be involved in a drunken brawl, dummy.

Only your fellow brawlers must have done so before you celebrate your annual fake holiday excuse to indulge the worst of your unfortunate genetic tendencies.

[johnforbes]

Clown said it was hard to prove a negative, but it is very easy.

Hitler was bad, and then WW II was the proof.

QED

[Clownkicker]

"Hitler was bad" is a positive assertion in a logic equation, dimwit. It is not a negative assertion in logic.

You're confusing your own subjective value judgment about what is "bad" with a "negative" logical assertion. It isn't the same thing. In logic, "bad" is not a "negative." Something is not a "negative" simply because you don't like it personally.

Parading your ignorance of logic does not make you look educated. All you are doing is demonstrating that you either failed logic or else never took logic at all, and so you are just talking out of your ass again.

But I will give you a chance to prove your silly claim that you can indeed prove a negative. Prove to us that "unicorns don't exist."

This should be a simple matter for someone who claims he can prove a negative.

[johnforbes]

It is positively saying a negative thing.

Saying Hitler was bad is saying something negative about Hitler.

That is easy to disprove, as already done.

One of us has taken a course in logic, but it is not Clowntroller.

To be fair, the mistake Clown made is a common one, but a mistake nonetheless.

What is hard to do is disprove a negative, such as if I were to say Clown's Sansabelt slacks are not stylish. He would have a tough time proving he is a stylish golfer.

As said, Clown made a common mistake. No big deal, but he can come away learning something here.

[Clownkicker]

See? ^^^^^ johnforbes claims he can prove "unicorns don't exist" but for some reason he failed to do so.

It is as it always was--johnforbes is yammering on, never proving anything other than demonstrating his gross ignorance.

To be fair, the mistake Dishonestjohn made is a common one for a Trump supporter, but a mistake nontheless.

[johnforbes]

Clown, it is no big deal.

You made a mistake, but it is a very common one and you can see people make it on TV all the time.

Just learn from it, and give a tip of your hat to the dashing Forbes.

[Clownkicker]

See? ^^^^^ johnforbes claims he can prove "unicorns don't exist" but for some reason he failed to do so.

He made a mistake, but it is a very common one and you can see people make it on TV all the time.

Just learn from it, johnny, and give a tip of your hat to reality.

[johnforbes]

This is really no big deal.

Clown made a very common mistake, and he could learn from it and take away something positive from this thread.

[Clownkicker]

We're all still waiting for johnforbes to prove that unicorns don't exist.

How long do you think it will take him to prove something so clear and simple that everyone already knows?

He made a mistake, but it is a very common one and you can see people make it at Right Wing and religious gatherings all the time.

Just learn from it, johnny, and give a tip of your hat to reality.

[johnforbes]

This is really no big deal.

Clown made a very common mistake, and he could learn from it and take away something positive from this thread.

[Clownkicker]

This is getting to be a big deal when johnforbes doesn't even understand what a "negative asserion" is in logic.

He's still confusing a "negative statement" with his personal value judgments.

Nevertheless, we are still waiting for johnforbes to prove that unicorns don't exist (since he claims he can prove a negative in logic.)

So do it, johnny. Be a man and put your clearly inadequate education where your big yap is. Prove to us that you can prove a negative by proving that unicorns don't exist. Teach me a lesson, dummy.

[johnforbes]

Unicorns don't exist.

The proof is that no zoo in the world contains one.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^ There also isn't a zoo or aquarium in the world that contains a Blue Whale.

So to johnforbes that proves Blue Whales don't exist.

What a moron...

[johnforbes]

Unicorns and blue whales are different.

QED

[Clownkicker]

Proving positive and negative statements are different.

QED

[johnforbes]

It is a shame that Clowntroller won't take a tiny bit of learning away from this thread.

It is easy to prove a negative. I say "Mussolini" was bad, and then I proffer WW II to prove my assertion.

It is difficult to disprove a negative. If I say Clowntroller is clownish and trolls, it is difficult for him to overcome that and assert his merit.

[Clownkicker]

It is a shame that johnfibs will not take a bit of learning away from this thread.

If he would, he would understand that saying "Mussolini was bad" is a POSITIVE statement in logic and thus the statement can be proven (if true.)

Meanwhile, prove that "unicorns don't exist." You can't. It is not "difficult to disprove," dimwit. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, no matter how hard you try.


Fer cripes sake, go talk to a logician and learn something for once in your useless partisan trolling life.

[johnforbes]

Yes, it is a positive statement that Mussolini was bad.

So that is saying something negative about Mussolini, and then it became trivially easy to prove that negative about him.

What is difficult is to disprove a negative -- in this example, if somebody wanted to argue that Mussolini was good.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, further demonstation of your ignorance of logic terms does not further your argument.

Quite the opposite.

But all you need do to prove me wrong is for you to prove "unicorns don't exist." It's something that everyone knows, so proving it must be a simple matter for a highly educated mind such as yours.

Remember, no one is asking you to DISPROVE anything. I'm asking you to PROVE something which YOU claim is possible to do. So prove it already. Prove that you know what you are talking about instead of simply yammering on with your irrelevant diversions.

[johnforbes]

One thing they used to teach in law school was not to embark upon the drifting hypotheticals of others.

In the deranged whirl of Clowntroller's "mind," there are many odd and indeed deranged elements.

As lucid, fair, rational thinkers, we don't mine the depths of depravity and darkness in the deep dregs of dopes.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^^^And that's what ignorant clowns say when they realize they can't actually do what they claimed they could do.

[johnforbes]

To reiterate:

One thing they used to teach in law school was not to embark upon the drifting hypotheticals of others.

In the deranged whirl of Clowntroller's "mind," there are many odd and indeed deranged elements.

As lucid, fair, rational thinkers, we don't mine the depths of depravity and darkness in the deep dregs of dopes.

[Clownkicker]

Dimwit, you don't mine the depths of ANYTHING, do you. You're mentally incapable of it. If you can't regurgitate swill directly from your trough, you can't speak at all.

Whenever someone catches you with your partisan pants down (as is the case with EVERY thread you post) you simply divert, distract, or run away with your tail between your legs.

This is because you're too chickenshit to defend your moronic beliefs and outright lies with any supporting evidence or any semblance of reason, as you did on this thread.

[johnforbes]

Clowntroller is every bit as genuine and authentic as "Hannah" Wilson of "Jeopardy!" note recently...

[Clownkicker]

Now johnny has brought his partisan frottage to this thread as well.

Clearly johnny can't defend his moronic beliefs and outright lies with any supporting evidence or any semblance of reason, exactly as I said he couldn't. Thus, his sadly impotent diversion.

[johnforbes]

Seriously, "Hannah Wilson" of brief "Jeopardy" note is more of a man than Clowntoker...