None, of course, because there isn’t any. I would like Markk to explain his innuendo about the polish ex-pres’ comment when in reality Markk took his statement so far out of context that he’s telling the equivalent of a lie. If not, and his argument is he hasn’t read the full statement and is just parroting another conspiracy theory based on less than nothing, that’s even worse.
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.
If they got the monies up front MZ would not have needed the Biden name... is that MZ wanted a chunk of it and that is why he went after the son of the man that would be a big part of how th e monies were distributed. Remember the ex-president of Poland is on record of saying that Hunter was only hired because of his name...
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.
I suspect that’s how the name got changed on to Markk on a post clearly written by cp. I’ve accidentally done that myself a couple of times. The disappearing quotes might be caused by formatting errors that “nests” the quotes too many levels deep. I might have been trying to fix a formatting error when my quotes of Markk disappeared from my post.
I know that I’ve done that at least once before. If I did it again, I apologize. Markk, I’ll owe you a beverage of your choice. ETA: Res just pointed out the post in question. I took a look and modified it; it should read correctly, now.
Even so, I still want to see some evidence of the Biden Crime Family’s alleged misdeeds. : D
ETA: Res, I’m pretty sure that the board software only allows quotes to be nested ‘two deep’.
Thanks, cp. But there is one other problem that I can't figure out. Where is Markk's original post that you quoted from in the post you fixed. ? I can't find it.
ETA: The two deep quote limit explains why Markk's quotes vanished from my post. I had formatted it by hand to avoid the limit, but must have made an error that bumped my quotes of Markk over the limit. On the old board, if you tried to post something that went more than two deep, you got a warning saying that you'd exceeded the limit. I'll check with Gad to see if that's something that still exists in this version of the software and if it can be activated.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I know that I’ve done that at least once before. If I did it again, I apologize. Markk, I’ll owe you a beverage of your choice. ETA: Res just pointed out the post in question. I took a look and modified it; it should read correctly, now.
Even so, I still want to see some evidence of the Biden Crime Family’s alleged misdeeds. : D
ETA: Res, I’m pretty sure that the board software only allows quotes to be nested ‘two deep’.
Thanks, cp. But there is one other problem that I can't figure out. Where is Markk's original post that you quoted from in the post you fixed. ? I can't find it.
ETA: The two deep quote limit explains why Markk's quotes vanished from my post. I had formatted it by hand to avoid the limit, but must have made an error that bumped my quotes of Markk over the limit. On the old board, if you tried to post something that went more than two deep, you got a warning saying that you'd exceeded the limit. I'll check with Gad to see if that's something that still exists in this version of the software and if it can be activated.
TECHNICAL
not to complicate things, but cp and I both quoted that part which I now can’t find either. Here’s my link to it from my post, if it helps in tracking it down
If they got the monies up front MZ would not have needed the Biden name... is that MZ wanted a chunk of it and that is why he went after the son of the man that would be a big part of how th e monies were distributed. Remember the ex-president of Poland is on record of saying that Hunter was only hired because of his name...
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?
Thanks, cp. But there is one other problem that I can't figure out. Where is Markk's original post that you quoted from in the post you fixed. ? I can't find it.
Check that link that you sent earlier.
Markk quoted my post in its entirety, then added his comments beneath. I used the ‘reset time/space continuum to (x)’ tool to restore this one.
ETA: The two deep quote limit explains why Markk's quotes vanished from my post. I had formatted it by hand to avoid the limit, but must have made an error that bumped my quotes of Markk over the limit. On the old board, if you tried to post something that went more than two deep, you got a warning saying that you'd exceeded the limit. I'll check with Gad to see if that's something that still exists in this version of the software and if it can be activated.
I understand why the limit is in place, but I’d love to have a 3-deep capability, if the option is there.
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.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Thanks, cp. But there is one other problem that I can't figure out. Where is Markk's original post that you quoted from in the post you fixed. ? I can't find it.
Check that link that you sent earlier.
Markk quoted my post in its entirety, then added his comments beneath. I used the ‘reset time/space continuum to (x)’ tool to restore this one.
ETA: The two deep quote limit explains why Markk's quotes vanished from my post. I had formatted it by hand to avoid the limit, but must have made an error that bumped my quotes of Markk over the limit. On the old board, if you tried to post something that went more than two deep, you got a warning saying that you'd exceeded the limit. I'll check with Gad to see if that's something that still exists in this version of the software and if it can be activated.
I understand why the limit is in place, but I’d love to have a 3-deep capability, if the option is there.
Seconded. It’s very awkward trying to keep the links consistent with the correct post when deeper posts not only disappear upon quoting, but somehow change the names associated with an upper level post, I suspect due to the program’s own internal efforts to remain consistent.
OK, I think all the of the relevant posts are now restored and properly attributed. However, the links to this post viewtopic.php?p=2774649#p2774649 from posts that quote it are broken. That can be fixed by posting the correct post ID number in the posts by Marcus and cp that quote the linked post. I can't fix it right now, but once one of us fixes the link, I think we can soft delete all this procedural crap so that only the substantive posts are visible.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Markk quoted my post in its entirety, then added his comments beneath. I used the ‘reset time/space continuum to (x)’ tool to restore this one.
I understand why the limit is in place, but I’d love to have a 3-deep capability, if the option is there.
Seconded. It’s very awkward trying to keep the links consistent with the correct post when deeper posts not only disappear upon quoting, but somehow change the names associated with an upper level post, I suspect due to the program’s own internal efforts to remain consistent.
Yep. And if you delete the quote tags that include the post_id, it will break the links to the quoted post.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
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.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
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.
