Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Mar 23, 2019.
Can we get a second opinion from Monica?
She still has 'issues'
Deez, I’m going to give you an analogy that sums you up perfectly. You think you are pissing on the Trump parade intentionally or unintentionally. What you are doing is pissing upwind. But you are the only one here that’s unaware that you are getting all wet from yourself. Which is puzzling to the rest of us that know you as the smartest guy in the room that you just don’t spin around and piss with the wind.
On sale now
Get them while you still can
Alternatives now available
Arguing with him is about as productive as arguing with Bubba. His track record is about as accurate as Bubba's too.
********. Now you're just Huskering. Here's what you also said.
This all reminds me of the lead-up to the Iraq War after 9/11. I recall the Left being adamant that there were no WMD (plus they felt the inspections were working anyway). The timing of their objections was similar to the timing of their assumption that Trump colluded; meaning it was early and they committed to their position out of the gate and in a very aggressive manner. Later Bernie voted against the Iraq War Resolution while Hillary voted for it (all forgotten and forgiven by the Left when she ran against Trump). I didn't understand how people such as posters on this board seemed to be so convinced of the facts. I was frequenting several Liberal chat-rooms and they "KNEW" there were no WMD.
The thing is, we do know some things but not all. We can say we know the dossier was fraudulent, but that is only a "warrant" in my view. It didn't prove that Trump didn't collude (can't prove a negative) but it still left the possibility open that he might have. How many conversations occurred that still have never seen the light of day? I wasn't sure one way or the other. The only thing I was sure about was that the Left was not operating from a love of America point of view; it was an attempted coup.
I'm glad Trump is apparently exonerated. We didn't need to go through all of that. It's also my opinion that many on the Left are bitterly disappointed at Mueller concluding there is no need for further indictments. Trump is being pursued not because he's an a-hole and grabs p*ssy; it's because he is possibly the most effective impediment ever to the Liberal agenda. George Bush was a nice man and they wanted him hung for war crimes.
Now Michelle Obama hugs him.
I have to disagree. It was just more than that dossier. It was obvious from the start the investigation was a soft coup to get rid of Trump.
I guess we possibly need to define "collusion." What does that really look like. Does it look like campaign officials pursuing "dirt" that was offered on Hillary?
I did mention I believe it was a coup attempt meaning the collusion claims was a convenient tool. There were many indictments and swamp draining in the two years. There was some good in my view. But it's over.
Yes, that's what I said, and it's consistent with what I said I said.
New CBS poll among all Americans
Majority thinks it was a politically motivated hoax
Yes, this is a lot like the WMD. Everybody "knew" Iraq had or didn't have WMD. Everybody "knew" Trump did or did not collude with the Russians. What Garmel puts forth as "evidence" of innocence is actually just evidence of bias. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, but it isn't evidence of innocence.
However, there are some differences between the WMD issue and the collusion issue. First, there is more evidence that government agencies were corrupted in the collusion story than that they were corrupted in the WMD story. Deceived and perhaps sloppy? Yes. But overtly crooked? No.
Second, the political media's handling of the WMD story was wildly different from the collusion story. Back in 2003, the media didn't necessarily take sides against the WMD claims. However, it was gave the skeptics a platform, took them seriously, and showed them respect. On the collusion issue, the media was wildly pro-collusion, presumed guilt, and showed anyone who was skeptical no respect at all. That's why the media's credibility is decimated on the collusion story but wasn't on the WMD story.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what the phrase "relevant evidence" means. It's ok. Most people don't.
I usually don't jump in, but considering that the stuff you quote seems to be almost exactly the same point (one in a little more crude tone than the other...) I'm missing the "gotcha" here. Clearly I'm missing something?
Well that's just crazy. Why would we want to define terms and all speak the same language? We wouldn't be able to throw crap at each other on Twitter then!
That means something if CBS released that poll. They aren't exactly Trump fans. I think it makes a lot of sense. The Left (the extremists) ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS overplay their hand. They are too obsessed to remain balance. It's always the one's who call people Nazi's.
One of your major faults is that you always seem to believe you're the most informed people in the room. You're not. I spend a lot of time studying politics. I probably put more time in a day then what you do in a week. What ticks me off is when a know-it-all such as yourself who obviously doesn't do much in political research tells me that I guessed. Sorry, someone who thought that it was a great idea to vote libertarian than Trump, thought Comey wasn't corrupt, unaware of Trump's wall size and other silly stuff you spout tells others your knowledge base isn't that good.
First, I doubt that you've done more political research and study that I. You sure as hell don't have my experience.
Second, knowing what constitutes relevant evidence has nothing to do with political research or knowledge. That's how I can tell you don't know what relevant evidence is.
Wrong again, Deez. If you studied politics you wouldn't be a walking gaffe machine. Your knowledge base is ****. AOC has more political experience than I do and she sure as hell knows nothing.
Ok, Bro. Whatever you say.
Can we get back to bashing Beto?
Yeah, so I wonder if we could figure out a way to get Tulsi to switch parties. Probably not...
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
That sound about right @Mr. Deez?
I do recall many Liberals being upset with the New York Times because they did not completely object to the Iraq War resolution.
Other than the fact that she's hot, why would we want her to switch parties? I don't see a lot of conservatism in her record.
The Federal Rule of Evidence 401 breaks that up into two elements, but yes, that is about right.
They didn't object to it, but they did take seriously those who did. They were far more even-handed.
Beto epitomizes toxic femininity.