Caveira

We should just give them money even if they can’t prove they need it?

No one is getting screwed boss.

Your victim mentality.

Pretty implied.

If you can’t afford a jeep rubicon?

No one has lost any rights boss

You live in the most free amazing country in the world. People come here in droves because of it. We take on the most immigrants in the world because of it. Your delusional. Your heart is coal.

Whole legs. Not splitting hairs. Mmmmmmm

I’ll try. I’m doin a brisket with salt lick from Texas and some chicken leg thigh combos with meat church. Mmmmmmmmmmm. Meat.

The statement is an ad hominem fallacy—specifically a “circumstantial” attack—because it dismisses concerns by targeting who is expressing them (white American atheists with “coexist” bumper stickers), not what is being argued. According to logic standards, that’s a textbook example of ad hominem 

How is the dan-o’s? I like his vids. I use a lot of meat church but always like to support those that create content that makes me hungry ha.

Apparently the president renamed the 4th. Funny https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8h8SAt2/

That’s a transcript of him two faced lying boss.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8h8aaTE/ Politicians are trash 00:00:01 --> 00:00:03 Congressman, you tweeted yesterday 00:00:04 --> 00:00:11 that the filibuster is a racially tinged artifact of the Jim Crow era. 00:00:11 --> 00:00:15 We cannot let it stand in the way of progress, 00:00:15 --> 00:00:17 high priority issues for the American people 00:00:18 --> 00:00:21 that are being held up in the Senate right now 00:00:21 --> 00:00:24 because of the presence of the filibuster. 00:00:24 --> 00:00:26 And so a minority 00:00:26 --> 00:00:30 of senators are allowed to block progress 00:00:30 --> 00:00:33 for the majority of the American people. 00:00:33 --> 00:00:35 And that's something that has to change. 00:00:35 --> 00:00:38 Filibuster was first deployed by Senator Calhoun 00:00:38 --> 00:00:41 in the run up to the Civil War 00:00:41 --> 00:00:43 to try to, uh, 00:00:43 --> 00:00:47 protect white supremacy as well as the institution of slavery. 00:00:47 --> 00:00:51 Uh, and then in terms of its modern form, uh, 00:00:51 --> 00:00:53 it was really deployed, uh, 00:00:53 --> 00:00:57 in the early part of the 20th century to stop civil rights legislation, 00:00:57 --> 00:01:00 including anti lynching legislation 00:01:00 --> 00:01:03 that passed the house of representatives 00:01:03 --> 00:01:06 in the early part of the 20th century, 00:01:06 --> 00:01:10 but could never break through a Senate filibuster. 00:01:11 --> 00:01:16 And that is part of the legacy of the absence of progress 00:01:16 --> 00:01:19 that we're still living with to this day.

I don’t know if evil is the right word but they definitely stick to a narrative that is pro democrat. If that isn’t minimally seen I don’t know what you’re looking at. That Biden Jake tapper book should anger everyone. Not only the profit motive but the idea it’s remotely true.

100%. He’s just trolling to see if he can start some fighting …. So no I wouldn’t take that bet

He’s saying. As all are. Brooks was very offensive to Muslims.

Santa Claus has nothing but coal for you boss.

Let’s break it down clearly: 1. What is a tautology? In formal logic: A tautology is a statement that is true by its logical structure alone—no matter what the specifics are. Example: “Either it's raining or it's not.” That's because it's always true, regardless of any real-world facts. In rhetoric/language: It's redundant repetition — saying the same thing twice in different words. Example: “free gift,” “armed gunman” — the added adjective doesn’t add new meaning. 2. What’s a doctrinal statement? A doctrinal statement makes a claim about reality or belief — it's asserting something, not just repeating or being true by definition. E.g.: “Jesus is the only path to salvation.” It's not true by definition, and it doesn’t repeat the same meaning redundantly. It expresses a belief that must be evaluated on its merits. 3. Why “Jesus is the only path…” isn’t tautology It isn't logically true by form alone—take away the subject, and it’s no longer valid. You could question or deny it. It isn't just repetitive or redundant. It's a claim about religious truth—thus, it’s doctrinal, not tautological.

The quote you provided is not tautological. Understanding Tautology A tautology, in logic, is a statement that is always true due to its logical structure, such as "It will rain tomorrow or it won't rain." In rhetoric, a tautology involves unnecessary repetition of the same idea using different words, like "free gift." Analysis of the Quote The quote expresses a theological viewpoint emphasizing the significance of Christ's resurrection and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ. It does not involve a logical structure that is always true by necessity, nor does it repeat the same idea using different words. Therefore, it is neither a logical nor a rhetorical tautology. In summary, the quote is a doctrinal assertion, not a tautological statement.

Seems criminal to me.

I’m doing chicken legs. (Thigh / Leg combo) and a 7 lb brisket flat. Happy 4th.

Fantastic! Like I said I’m wayyyyy behind you. Trying to learn this a major to g to d ha. Paraphrased. Name that tune. ?

They play some nice chords and melodies. Not to challenging imo and I’m far far behind you. if you listen to this 2/3/4 times and don’t love them You don’t love the pixies…. Kim diehl (spelling ?) was in the breeders from that era ….. That cannonball tune

Wasn’t 2020 the safest most secure election ever?